A factor analysis of the SSQ (Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale)
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The speech, spatial, and qualities of hearing questionnaire (SSQ) is a self-report test of auditory disability. The 49 items ask how well a listener would do in many complex listening situations illustrative of real life. The scores on the items are often combined into the three main sections or into 10 pragmatic subscales. We report here a factor analysis of the SSQ that we conducted to further investigate its statistical properties and to determine its structure. DESIGN: Statistical factor analysis of questionnaire data, using parallel analysis to determine the number of factors to retain, oblique rotation of factors, and a bootstrap method to estimate the confidence intervals. STUDY SAMPLE: 1220 people who have attended MRC IHR over the last decade. RESULTS: We found three clear factors, essentially corresponding to the three main sections of the SSQ. They are termed "speech understanding", "spatial perception", and "clarity, separation, and identification". Thirty-five of the SSQ questions were included in the three factors. There was partial evidence for a fourth factor, "effort and concentration", representing two more questions. CONCLUSIONS: These results aid in the interpretation and application of the SSQ and indicate potential methods for generating average scores.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 it