Validation of a French (Québec) version of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To assess the psychometric properties of the Quebec French translation of the Tinnitus Handicap Inventory (THI-FQ). DESIGN: The original version of the THI was translated into French by two different people, and then revised before being administered to 221 study participants. A subgroup of 75 participants also completed the French versions of the Beck Depression Inventory II (BDI-II) and the Tinnitus Reaction Questionnaire (TRQ). STUDY SAMPLE: The study participants used French as their home language, had completed an otolaryngology (ENT) assessment, and had sought help with disabling tinnitus. RESULTS: No differences were found according to gender, age, or degree of hearing loss. The THI-FQ was very stable over a period of approximately 32 days. Internal consistency was 0.93 for the total score. Convergent validity with the TRQ was 0.81 (p < 0.001) while construct validity, as obtained with the BDI-II, was 0.74 (p < 0.001). As in other studies, the factor analysis did not confirm the structure proposed by Newman et al in the original study (1996). CONCLUSIONS: The THI-FQ presents very good reliability and validity, comparable to translations in other languages and the original version.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.013 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".