MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2059251290 · doi:10.3109/14992027.2010.491097

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

2010· article· en· W2059251290 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Audiology · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsTest (biology)PsychologyAudiologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.335
Threshold uncertainty score0.260

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.045
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.336 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it