Development of the Listening Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (LSEQ)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Listening self-efficacy refers to the beliefs, or confidence, that listeners have in their capability to successfully listen in specific situations, which may influence audiologic rehabilitation outcomes. The objective of this study was to develop and validate the Listening Self-Efficacy Questionnaire (LSEQ), which quantifies listening self-efficacy in a variety of situations where the goal of the listener is to understand speech. Study Sample: Older listeners with hearing loss (N = 169) participated in the study. Design: A factor analysis showed that the LSEQ has three subscales, with beliefs about listening capabilities relating to the following situations: (1) dialogue in quiet, (2) focusing attention on a single source, and (3) complex auditory scenes. Internal consistency reliability was excellent (Chronbach's α > .80). Results: The validity of the LSEQ was demonstrated by comparing the LSEQ scores to audiologic measures, responses on questionnaires, and to the scores for reference groups of younger and older listeners with normal hearing. Conclusion: The findings indicate that the LSEQ is a valid and reliable measure of listening self-efficacy with good potential for use in clinical and research settings.SumarioObjetivo: La auto-eficacia para escuchar se refiere a la convicción o confianza que el sujeto tenga sobre su capacidad de escuchar exitosamente en situaciones específicas, las cuáles pueden influir los resultados de una rehabilitación audiológica. El propósito de este estudio fue desarrollar y validar un cuestionario de auto-eficacia para escuchar (LSEQ), que cuantifica la auto-eficacia para escuchar en una variedad de situaciones, donde la meta es entender lenguaje. Muestra del Estudio: Participaron en el estudio sujetos mayores con hipoacusia (n = 169). Diseño: Un análisis factorial mostró que el LSEQ tiene tres sub-escalas, con relación a capacidades para escuchar en la siguientes situaciones: (1) diálogo en silencio, (2) concentrando la atención en un fuente única, y (3) escenarios auditivos complejos. La confiabilidad y la consistencia interna fue excelente (Chronbach α > .80). Resultados: La validez del LSEQ fue demostrada comparando las puntuaciones con las mediciones audiológicas, con las respuestas de cuestionarios, y con las puntuaciones para grupos de referencia de personas jóvenes y viejas con audición normal. Conclusión: Los hallazgos indican que el LSEQ es una medida válida y confiable de auto-eficacia para escuchar con un buen potencial para utilizarse en el contexto clínico y de investigación.
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 | 0.007 | 0.013 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".