Cargando…

Pooling and Comparing Noise Annoyance Scores and “High Annoyance” (HA) Responses on the 5-Point and 11-Point Scales: Principles and Practical Advice

The use of different noise annoyance scales across studies and socio-acoustic surveys, in particular the popular 5-point verbal and 11-point numerical scales, has made the evaluation, comparison, and pooling of noise annoyance responses among studies a taxing issue. This is particularly the case whe...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Brink, Mark, Giorgis-Allemand, Lise, Schreckenberg, Dirk, Evrard, Anne-Sophie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: MDPI 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8306719/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34299790
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147339
_version_ 1783727878363414528
author Brink, Mark
Giorgis-Allemand, Lise
Schreckenberg, Dirk
Evrard, Anne-Sophie
author_facet Brink, Mark
Giorgis-Allemand, Lise
Schreckenberg, Dirk
Evrard, Anne-Sophie
author_sort Brink, Mark
collection PubMed
description The use of different noise annoyance scales across studies and socio-acoustic surveys, in particular the popular 5-point verbal and 11-point numerical scales, has made the evaluation, comparison, and pooling of noise annoyance responses among studies a taxing issue. This is particularly the case when “high annoyance” (HA) responses need to be compared and when the original studies used different scales; thus, there are different so-called cutoff points that define the part of the scale that indicates the HA status. This paper provides practical guidance on pooling and comparing the respective annoyance data in both the linear and logistic regression context in a statistically adequate manner. It caters to researchers who want to carry out pooled analyses on annoyance data that have been collected on different scales or need to compare exposure–HA relationships between the 5-point and 11-point scales. The necessary simulation of a cutoff point non-native to an original scale can be achieved with a random assignment approach, which is exemplified in the paper using original response data from a range of recent noise annoyance surveys. A code example in the R language is provided for easy implementation of the pertinent procedures with one’s own survey data. Lastly, the not insignificant limitations of combining and/or comparing responses from different noise annoyance scales are discussed.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8306719
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher MDPI
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-83067192021-07-25 Pooling and Comparing Noise Annoyance Scores and “High Annoyance” (HA) Responses on the 5-Point and 11-Point Scales: Principles and Practical Advice Brink, Mark Giorgis-Allemand, Lise Schreckenberg, Dirk Evrard, Anne-Sophie Int J Environ Res Public Health Article The use of different noise annoyance scales across studies and socio-acoustic surveys, in particular the popular 5-point verbal and 11-point numerical scales, has made the evaluation, comparison, and pooling of noise annoyance responses among studies a taxing issue. This is particularly the case when “high annoyance” (HA) responses need to be compared and when the original studies used different scales; thus, there are different so-called cutoff points that define the part of the scale that indicates the HA status. This paper provides practical guidance on pooling and comparing the respective annoyance data in both the linear and logistic regression context in a statistically adequate manner. It caters to researchers who want to carry out pooled analyses on annoyance data that have been collected on different scales or need to compare exposure–HA relationships between the 5-point and 11-point scales. The necessary simulation of a cutoff point non-native to an original scale can be achieved with a random assignment approach, which is exemplified in the paper using original response data from a range of recent noise annoyance surveys. A code example in the R language is provided for easy implementation of the pertinent procedures with one’s own survey data. Lastly, the not insignificant limitations of combining and/or comparing responses from different noise annoyance scales are discussed. MDPI 2021-07-09 /pmc/articles/PMC8306719/ /pubmed/34299790 http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147339 Text en © 2021 by the authors. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
spellingShingle Article
Brink, Mark
Giorgis-Allemand, Lise
Schreckenberg, Dirk
Evrard, Anne-Sophie
Pooling and Comparing Noise Annoyance Scores and “High Annoyance” (HA) Responses on the 5-Point and 11-Point Scales: Principles and Practical Advice
title Pooling and Comparing Noise Annoyance Scores and “High Annoyance” (HA) Responses on the 5-Point and 11-Point Scales: Principles and Practical Advice
title_full Pooling and Comparing Noise Annoyance Scores and “High Annoyance” (HA) Responses on the 5-Point and 11-Point Scales: Principles and Practical Advice
title_fullStr Pooling and Comparing Noise Annoyance Scores and “High Annoyance” (HA) Responses on the 5-Point and 11-Point Scales: Principles and Practical Advice
title_full_unstemmed Pooling and Comparing Noise Annoyance Scores and “High Annoyance” (HA) Responses on the 5-Point and 11-Point Scales: Principles and Practical Advice
title_short Pooling and Comparing Noise Annoyance Scores and “High Annoyance” (HA) Responses on the 5-Point and 11-Point Scales: Principles and Practical Advice
title_sort pooling and comparing noise annoyance scores and “high annoyance” (ha) responses on the 5-point and 11-point scales: principles and practical advice
topic Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8306719/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34299790
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph18147339
work_keys_str_mv AT brinkmark poolingandcomparingnoiseannoyancescoresandhighannoyanceharesponsesonthe5pointand11pointscalesprinciplesandpracticaladvice
AT giorgisallemandlise poolingandcomparingnoiseannoyancescoresandhighannoyanceharesponsesonthe5pointand11pointscalesprinciplesandpracticaladvice
AT schreckenbergdirk poolingandcomparingnoiseannoyancescoresandhighannoyanceharesponsesonthe5pointand11pointscalesprinciplesandpracticaladvice
AT evrardannesophie poolingandcomparingnoiseannoyancescoresandhighannoyanceharesponsesonthe5pointand11pointscalesprinciplesandpracticaladvice