English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

In the management of hyperacusis, the hyperacusis questionnaire (HQ) is a frequently used measure. It is comprised of 14 items, with a total score of 42 points. We have developed the Japanese version of the HQ, but the validity of the factors has not been considered. This study was performed to re-evaluate the HQ to confirm its validity and reliability. Exploratory factor analysis was performed and we removed the problematic items with low factor loadings and re-evaluated the reliability and validity. Patients with hyperacusis (n = 109) were included. Hyperacusis was confirmed based on the patients’ complaint of “intolerance to sound”. Patients without hyperacusis but with tinnitus and/or hearing loss (n = 103) were also included. Items 1, 5, 6, and 11 had low factor loadings; therefore, we removed these four items. The HQ with 10 items had high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach’s α = 0.926). The mean total scores for the patients with and without hyperacusis were 16.3 and 4.0, respectively; the inter-group difference was statistically significant. We found the best score that maximised sensitivity and specificity was 8. The HQ with 10 items, up to 30 points and a cut-off score of 8 is appropriate for classifying hyperacusis.

Cut-off score of the Khalfa Hyperacusis Questionnaire with 10 selected items