{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02245614035087719, 'fraction_numerical': 0.007017543859649123, 'mean_word_length': 5.068085106382979, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Hyperacusis Questionnaire, loudness discomfort levels, and the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale: A cross-sectional study

Abstract Objective: The aim of this study was to compare hyperacusis measurement tools often used in audiological practice in order to determine the most valid measure for assessing hyperacusis. Another aim was to examine the mean value for the Hyperacusis Questionnaire (HQ) in this patient group. Design: This was a cross-sectional study to compare the HQ with loudness discomfort levels (LDL), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), and items from a clinical interview dealing with hyperacusis symptoms. Sixty-two patients between the ages of 18 and 61 years were evaluated. All patients were diagnosed with hyperacusis. Results: There were significant negative correlations between the HQ and nearly all LDL scores for the right ear, but no significant correlations could be found for the left ear. LDLs were significantly correlated with the anxiety subscale of the HADS while there were no significant correlations between the HQ and either of the HADS scales. Of the 62 patients, 41 scored above and 21 scored below the previously recommended cut-off for the HQ. Conclusion: We suggest that clinicians should use the HQ and HADS in combination with a clinical interview to diagnose hyperacusis, and propose that the cut-off for the Swedish version of the HQ should be lowered.