Benfield, J.A., Nurse, G.A., Jakubowski, R., Gibson, A., Taff, D ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

14 Table 4. Regression Results for NSS-SF Predicting Audio Clip Acceptability (Study 5; n = 165) Gender (0 = female, 1 = male) Age NSS-SF Constant B (SE) B (SE) B (SE) M (SD) Model summary B (SE) β β β 2.68 (1.88) R 2 = .016 3.22 (.58)** .270 (.21) −.01 (.01) .00 (.02) Audio Clip 1 (Leq = 36 dBA) F(3, 315) = 1.657, p = .176 .07 −.10 −.01 1.31 (2.46) R 2 = .007 2.42 (.76)** −.04 (.27) .00 (.01) −.04 (.03) Audio Clip 2 (Leq = 43 dBA) F(3, 316) = 0.688, p = .560 −.01 −.01 −.08 −0.16 (2.62) R 2 = .008 0.67 (.82) .30 (.30) .00 (.01) −.04 (.03) Audio Clip 3 (Leq = 50 dBA) F(3, 316) = 0.882, p = .451 .06 −.02 −.06 −0.97 (2.46) R 2 = .023 0.60 (.76) .34 (.28) .00 (.01) −.07 (.03) Audio Clip 4 (Leq = 57 dBA) F(3, 31) = 2.482, p = .061 .07 −.03 −.12* −1.29 (2.57) R 2 = .033 0.65 (.80) .43 (.29) −.01 (.01) −.07 (.03) Audio Clip 5 (Leq = 64 dBA) F(3, 316) = 3.566, p = .015 .08 −.08 −.12* Note: NSS-SF = Noise Sensitivity Scale short form. *p < .05. **p < .01.
<strong>Benfield</strong> et al. 15 In a research context, a shortened version with such fidelity with the original scale has several advantages. Most obvious are the possibilities opened to applied researchers. Community noise surveys, visitor intercept interviews, and fieldwork on sleep disturbances would benefit from the addition of an individual difference measure of noise sensitivity but cannot always include the additional items necessary for such a measure. Oftentimes, such situations necessitate the use of a single-item noise sensitivity question, but such measures have been shown to lack reliability (e.g., Zimmer & Ellermeier, 1999). The NSS-SF confers all the advantages of the longer, original NSS without adding the same burden of items; it could serve as a compromise between questionnaire brevity and the need for good measurement. Taken a step further, it would not be unreasonable for the NSS-SF to be used in laboratory situations in place of the longer original. After all, the two scales are structurally identical, highly correlated, and have comparable reliability. Why measure something with 21 items if you can accomplish the same goals with only 5? This is not to say that the NSS-SF should be heralded as the definitive measure of noise sensitivity. The original NSS is highly valued within noise research and is often the exemplar in discussion related to noise sensitivity (e.g., Job, 1999; Miedema & Vos, 2003; Zimmer & Ellermeier, 1999). As such, it was an obvious choice for the current research purpose. However, other measures such as Zimmer and Ellermeier’s (1998, 1999) Noise Sensitivity Questionnaire (LEF) are equally valuable in noise research and may even be more appropriate in some contexts. Unfortunately, the LEF contains 52 items making it impractical for use in brief surveys. Balancing the importance of questionnaire length, research specific goals, and different measurement options is something that individual researchers will have to decide on themselves, but future research involving the NSS-SF and other measures of noise sensitivity can help with those decisions. Perhaps shortened versions of other scales could be developed to allow for use in field situations to complement the versatility and advantages given by a 5-item NSS-SF. In the end, a new option for noise researchers has been created that allows for survey brevity and measurement validity. It is hoped that such an instrument allows for new research avenues to be opened in field settings or while addressing applied problems; it is also hoped that such an instrument facilitates the inclusion of individual noise sensitivity into noise research generally. More broadly, the NSS-SF might be useful in studies of and interventions for the serious health consequences of noise, which include among other things hypertension, ischemic heart disease, cognitive impairment in children,
Page 1 and 2: 454430EABXXX10.1177/00139165124544
Page 3 and 4: Benfield et al. 3 and their percept
Page 5 and 6: Benfield et al. 5 compliance rate f
Page 7 and 8: Benfield et al. 7 Table 2. Item Fac
Page 9 and 10: Benfield et al. 9 Method Participan
Page 11 and 12: Benfield et al. 11 problematic to t
Page 13: Benfield et al. 13 crowds (r = .26,
Page 17 and 18: Benfield et al. 17 Cohen, S., Evans
Page 19 and 20: Benfield et al. 19 Stansfeld, S. A.

Benfield, J.A., Nurse, G.A., Jakubowski, R., Gibson, A., Taff, D ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?