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

Benfield 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,