Construct validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the Swedish version of the Hearing and Functioning in Everyday Life Questionnaire (HFEQ)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The overall aim of this study was to evaluate the construct validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability of the Swedish version of the Hearing and Functioning in Everyday Life Questionnaire (HFEQ-SWE). The aim was to investigate how adults with hearing loss experience their everyday functioning from the perspective of hearing, using the HFEQ-SWE. DESIGN AND STUDY SAMPLE: A quantitative cross-sectional survey study with 628 adults, aged 30-96 years (mean 74.4, SD = 10.3) recruited from audiological clinics in three counties of Sweden. The factor structure of the HFEQ was examined by confirmatory factor analysis via comparisons with the 6 subscales of the HFEQ: health, hearing, communication, participation in society, individual resources and societal support. HFEQ ratings were compared for the following variables: sex, level of education, employment and hearing aid usage. RESULTS: With some modifications of the original HFEQ structure, a CFA showed sufficient model fit and confirmed the HFEQ construct. The internal consistency for the total score was satisfactory, and the correlations between repeated measurements showed stability over time for the total score. There were variations at item level and subscale levels. We identified broad variations in HFEQ ratings and found that the experience of everyday functioning is associated with factors such as age, gender, level of education, employment, and hearing aid usage. Significant correlations were found between self-reported hearing loss and 79% of the HFEQ items. CONCLUSION: The overall study results strengthen the validity and reliability of the HFEQ and indicate satisfactory construct validity, internal consistency and test-retest reliability for the total score. Some items need further attention. Differences in the HFEQ rating were found at the item level for the variables of age, gender, education, employment, and hearing aid use, suggesting that these factors affect everyday functioning in addition to hearing loss.
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 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 | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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 itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".