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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

6 Environment and BehaviorXX(X) Table 1. Sample Demographics Across the Five Studies Results and Discussion Age Population sampled n M (SD) Sex Study 1: Sample 1 College students 390 19.21 (2.17) 200 female, 190 male Study 1: Sample 2 College students 308 19.46 (2.69) 210 female, 98 male Study 1: Sample 3 Adults 202 36.11 (13.65) 138 female, 64 male Study 2 College students 438 19.47 (2.26) 247 female, 191 male Study 3 College students 49 21.00 (2.66) 29 female, 20 male Study 4 National park visitors 106 47.09 (15.76) 56 female, 50 male Study 5 National park visitors 165 48.15 (14.51) 74 female, 91 male Three separate exploratory factor analyses were run on the different samples to determine which items on the NSS consistently displayed the highest factor loadings. Such consistency was interpreted to be an indication that those items were regularly demonstrating a strong connection with the larger construct being measured across multiple samples. Results showed that 5 items consistently had the highest factor loadings (.467-.788) across all three samples. Internal consistency among those items was shown to be acceptable, especially given the small number of items (α = .73, .78, and .82, respectively). Moreover, the 5-item scales were highly correlated (r = .86-.91) with the 21-item original NSS. As a result, those 5 items were chosen to act as the initial base for the NSS-SF. Table 2 displays the 5 items retained for the short form along with factor loadings, reliability information, and correlations with the NSS across samples. After determining the initial items for the NSS-SF, correlations were run between the NSS-SF score and the Big Five personality traits measured in the adult sample. As described elsewhere, previous research has shown that extraversion and neuroticism (the opposite end of emotional stability) had contrasting relationships to noise annoyance perception and outcomes. Extraversion was expected to negatively correlate with NSS-SF scores; emotional stability (the opposite of neuroticism) was also expected to negatively correlate with NSS-SF. As seen in Table 3, both hypothesized relationships were demonstrated, with extraversion and neuroticism significantly correlating with NSS-SF scores in the hypothesized direction (r = −.15 and −.29, respectively).
<strong>Benfield</strong> et al. 7 Table 2. Item Factor Loadings, Internal Consistency, and Correlation With Original NSS for Study 1, 2, 4, and 5 Samples Sample 1 (n = 390) Sample 2 (n = 308) Sample 3 (n = 202) Study 2 (n = 438) Study 4 (n = 106) Study 5 (n = 165) NSS 21 “I am sensitive to noise.” NSS 18 .674 .728 .788 .701 .829 .813 “I find it hard to relax in a place that’s noisy.” NSS 19 .628 .625 .698 .564 .721 .754 “I get mad at people who make noise that keeps me from falling asleep or getting work done.” NSS 7 .615 .629 .618 .616 .708 .732 “I get annoyed when my neighbors are noisy.” NSS 8 .556 .632 .631 .622 .782 .721 “I get used to most noises without much .467 .653 .729 .584 .668 .693 difficulty.” a Internal consistency (α) .73 .78 .82 .75 .80 .80 Correlation with 21-item NSS (r) .86**** .91**** .91**** — — — Note: NSS = Noise Sensitivity Scale. a NSS Item 8 is reverse scored. ****p < .000. With five items selected to represent the NSS-SF and internal item consistency being acceptable, a solid foundation to build on was established in Study 1. In addition, initial tests of convergent validity showed relationships that were consistent in terms of direction and magnitude to previous research. However, several additional pieces of information related to structure, overall stability, and validity were necessary to demonstrate that the scale was acceptable for use as a research instrument. Study 2 The original NSS represented a single unified factor, and the five items used in the short form should perform similarly. Before attempting to further validate the NSS-SF, a confirmation of its factor structure was carried out using a new sample and confirmatory factor analysis procedures.
Page 1 and 2: 454430EABXXX10.1177/00139165124544
Page 3 and 4: Benfield et al. 3 and their percept
Page 5: Benfield et al. 5 compliance rate f
Page 9 and 10: Benfield et al. 9 Method Participan
Page 11 and 12: Benfield et al. 11 problematic to t
Page 13 and 14: Benfield et al. 13 crowds (r = .26,
Page 15 and 16: Benfield et al. 15 In a research co
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 ...

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?