ArticlePloS one2024
Confirmatory factor analysis of the Tinnitus Impact Questionnaire using data from patients seeking help for tinnitus alone or tinnitus combined with hyperacusis.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Importance of Comprehensive Tinnitus Assessment: A Conceptual Analysis of International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF)-Linked Questionnaires.Journal of audiology & otology · 2026Review
- Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) for Managing Tinnitus, Hyperacusis, and Misophonia: The 2025 Tonndorf Lecture.Brain sciences · 2025Article
- Development and Psychometric Validation of Tinnitus Qualities and Impact Questionnaire.Clinics and practice · 2025Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) of the Tinnitus Impact Questionnaire (TIQ) was performed. In contrast to commonly used tinnitus questionnaires, the TIQ is intended solely to assess the impact of tinnitus by not including items related to hearing loss or tinnitus loudness. This was a psychometric study based on a retrospective cross-sectional analysis of clinical data. Data were available for 155 new patients who had attended a tinnitus and hyperacusis clinic in the UK within a five-month period and had completed the TIQ. The mean age was 54 years (standard deviation = 14 years). The TIQ demonstrated good internal consistency, with Cronbach's α = 0.84 and McDonald's ω = 0.89. CFA showed that two items of the TIQ had low factor loadings for both one-factor and two-factor models and their scores showed low correlations with scores for other items. Bi-factor analysis gave a better fit, indicated by a relative chi-square (χ2) of 18.5, a Root-Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) of 0.103, a Comparative Fit Index (CFI) of 0.97, a Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) of 0.92, and a Standardized Root-Mean Residual (SPMR) of 0.038. Total TIQ scores were moderately correlated with scores for the Visual Analogue Scale of effect of tinnitus on life and the Screening for Anxiety and Depression-Tinnitus questionnaire, supporting the convergent validity of the TIQ. The TIQ score was not correlated with the pure-tone average hearing threshold, indicating discriminant validity. A multiple-causes multiple-indicator (MIMIC) model showed no influences of age, gender or hearing status on TIQ item scores. The TIQ is an internally consistent tool. CFA suggests a bi-factor model with sufficient unidimensionality to support the use of the overall TIQ score for assessing the impact of tinnitus. TIQ scores are distinct from the impact of hearing impairment among patients who have tinnitus combined with hearing loss.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.