Older adults’ performance on the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ): Test-retest reliability and a comparison of interview and self-administration methods
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The purposes of the study were to examine the test-retest properties of the speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing scale (SSQ) and to determine if the method of test administration affected these properties. Four groups of 40 older adult participants completed the SSQ twice at an interval of about a half year, using either the same or different administration methods at the two test times. The SSQ was administered using an interview method and/or it was self-administered and then returned by mail. Although the method of test administration did not systematically affect scores on the SSQ, the highest test-retest correlation (r = 0.83) was observed using the interview method at both test times, making it the best choice for the purpose of demonstrating the effectiveness of interventions. The other three combinations of dual-administration in this study also provided reliable results and may be preferable because the self-administration method is less time-consuming and labour-intensive. In conclusion, both the interview and self-administration methods are recommended, but with the best choice depending on the goals of the tester.SumarioEl propósito de este estudio fue examinar las propiedades test-retest de la escala de audición del habla, espacial y de cualidades (SSQ) y determinar si el método de administración de la prueba afecta esas propiedades. Cuatro grupos de 40 participantes adultos mayores completaron el SSQ dos veces con un intervalo de cerca de medio año, usando (tanto) el mismo o un diferente método de administración en los dos tiempos de la prueba. El SSQ se administró usando un método de entrevista y/o por la auto aplicación y luego, enviado por correo. No obstante que el método de administración de la prueba no afectó sistemáticamente las puntuaciones del SSQ, la mayor correlación test-retest (r = 0.83) se observó usando el método de entrevista en los dos tiempos de la prueba, haciendo de él la mejor selección para demostrar la efectividad de las intervenciones. Las otras tres combinaciones de la administración doble en este estudio, dieron resultados confiables y pueden ser preferibles, porque el método de auto aplicación consume menos tiempo y requiere menor trabajo intensivo. En conclusión, se recomiendan tanto los métodos de entrevista como el de auto aplicación, pero la mejor selección dependerá de las metas del examinador.
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 | 0.011 | 0.024 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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".