Fear of negative evaluation, avoidance and mental distress among hearing-impaired employees.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: This study examined the relationship between hearing impairment and mental distress. We hypothesized that fear of negative evaluation by others and avoidant communication strategies are associated with increased symptoms of depression. METHOD: Hearing-impaired adults (N = 105) who signed up for a stress management course completed the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HAD; Zigmond & Snaith, 1983), the Fear of Negative Evaluation Scale (FNE; Watson & Friend, 1969), and the Conversation Tactics Checklist (CONV; Hallam et al., 2007). The participants' ratings of subjective hearing disability were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale and pure-tone audiometry obtained. Hierarchical multiple regression analysis was used to assess associations between fear of negative evaluation, avoidance, and symptoms of depression. RESULTS: OBJECTIVE hearing impairment was moderate or less for 81% (n = 87) of participants, and the correlation between subjective hearing disability and objective hearing impairment was not significant. Multiple regression analysis showed that fear of negative evaluation and avoidant communication strategies contributed significantly to the variance in depression symptoms, and the total explained variance was 41.7%, F(5, 93) = 13.32, p = .000. Subjective and objective hearing disability did not make significant contributions. CONCLUSION: Symptoms of depression appear to be closely related to fear of negative evaluation by others and use of avoidant communication strategies. Future clinical studies should address whether targeting these problems in rehabilitation interventions decreases depressive symptoms among hearing-impaired individuals.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".