Acessibilidade / Reportar erro

Translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Noise Exposure Questionnaire (NEQ) to Brazilian Portuguese

ABSTRACT

Objective

To translate and cross-culturally adapt the Noise Exposure Questionnaire (NEQ) and 1-Minute Noise Screen (NEQ-S) instruments to Brazilian Portuguese.

Methods

Procedures widely known in health research were used in the translation and cross-cultural adaptation process, comprising the following steps: initial translation, synthesis of translations, back-translation, expert committee, pretest, and content and layout validation. Altogether, 60 workers participated in the pretest by answering the questionnaires and then evaluating them in terms of understandability, layout, clarity, and writing. Reliability was verified with Cohen's kappa test, and the internal consistency was analyzed with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient.

Results

The translated and adapted versions of NEQ and NEQ-S were similar in terms of general and referential meanings. However, some modifications and adaptations were made to adapt them to the Brazilian reality. The kappa test indicated moderate agreement and Cronbach’s alpha coefficient, substantial internal consistency.

Conclusion

The translation and cross-cultural adaptation were carried out according to the methodology recommended in the national and international literature, performing the necessary equivalences to maintain the face and content validity with the original instrument. The availability of NEQ and NEQ-S in Brazilian Portuguese opens new fields of research to quantify yearly noise exposure more in-depth.

Keywords:
Translation; Hearing; Hearing Loss; Noise-Induced; Noise; Questionnaires

RESUMO

Objetivo

Traduzir e realizar a adaptação transcultural dos instrumentos Noise Exposure Questionnaire (NEQ) e 1-Minute Noise Screen (NEQ-S) para a versão em português brasileiro.

Método

O processo de tradução e adaptação transcultural seguiu procedimentos amplamente utilizados em pesquisas da área da saúde, compostos pelas seguintes etapas: tradução inicial, síntese das traduções, retrotradução, comitê de especialistas, pré-teste, e validação do conteúdo e aparência. Na etapa de pré-teste, participaram 60 trabalhadores, que responderam aos questionários e, posteriormente, os avaliaram quanto ao: entendimento, aparência, clareza e escrita. Para a verificação da confiabilidade, foi utilizado o teste kappa de Cohen e para a análise da consistência interna foi aplicado o coeficiente alfa de Cronbach.

Resultados

As versões traduzidas e adaptadas dos questionários NEQ e NEQ-S mostraram-se semelhantes em relação ao significado geral e referencial. Entretanto, algumas modificações e adaptações foram realizadas, para adequação à realidade brasileira. O teste kappa indicou concordância moderada e o coeficiente alfa de Cronbach, consistência interna substancial.

Conclusão

A tradução e a adaptação transcultural foram realizadas de acordo com a metodologia preconizada na literatura nacional e internacional, incluindo-se as equivalências necessárias para a manutenção da validade de face e conteúdo com o instrumento original. A disponibilização dos questionários NEQ e NEQ-S na versão da língua portuguesa brasileira abre novos campos de pesquisa para aprofundamento da quantificação de exposição anual ao ruído.

Descritores:
Tradução; Audição; Perda Auditiva Provocada por Ruído; Ruído; Questionários

INTRODUCTION

Studies increasingly address the knowledge about noise-related hearing loss, probably due to important research results involving guinea pigs(11 Liberman MC, Kujawa SG. Cochlear synaptopathy in acquired sensorineural hearing loss: manifestations and mechanisms. Hear Res. 2017;349:138-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2017.01.003. PMid:28087419.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2017....
), demonstrating noise-induced cochlear synaptopathy(22 Guest H, Dewey RS, Plack CJ, Couth S, Prendergast G, Bakay W, et al. The Noise Exposure Structured Interview (NESI): an instrument for the comprehensive estimation of lifetime noise exposure. Trends Hear. 2018;22:2331216518803213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2331216518803213. PMid:30295145.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23312165188032...
). In guinea pig studies, noise-exposure variables can be carefully controlled (frequency, intensity level, and exposure time), ensuring precise estimates of the association between noise exposure and hearing loss(33 Griest-Hines SE, Bramhall NF, Reavis KM, Theodoroff SM, Henry JA. Development and initial validation of the Lifetime Exposure to Noise and Solvents Questionnaire in U.S. service members and veterans. Am J Audiol. 2021;30(3S):810-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJA-20-00145. PMid:34000200.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJA-20-00...
). In human studies, dosimetry is the recommended technique in prospective assessments of these variables. However, retrospective estimates depend predominantly on self-reports of cumulative noise exposure, in which questionnaires are the indicated instruments to obtain such information(22 Guest H, Dewey RS, Plack CJ, Couth S, Prendergast G, Bakay W, et al. The Noise Exposure Structured Interview (NESI): an instrument for the comprehensive estimation of lifetime noise exposure. Trends Hear. 2018;22:2331216518803213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2331216518803213. PMid:30295145.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23312165188032...
,33 Griest-Hines SE, Bramhall NF, Reavis KM, Theodoroff SM, Henry JA. Development and initial validation of the Lifetime Exposure to Noise and Solvents Questionnaire in U.S. service members and veterans. Am J Audiol. 2021;30(3S):810-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJA-20-00145. PMid:34000200.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJA-20-00...
).

Approximately 27.7 million people aged 20 to 69 years in the United States are estimated to live with noise-induced hearing loss (NIHL)(44 Hoffman HJ, Dobie RA, Losonczy KG, Themann CL, Flamme GA. Declining prevalence of hearing loss in US adults aged 20 to 69 years. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;143(3):274-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2016.3527. PMid:27978564.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2016.3...
). Moreover, NIHL is still the second most self-reported occupational disease, despite the regulations and interventions at the workplaces(55 Nelson DI, Nelson RY, Concha-Barrientos M, Fingerhut M. The global burden of occupational noise-induced hearing loss. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48(6):446-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20223. PMid:16299704.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20223...
,66 Samelli AG, Matas CG, Gomes RF, Morata TC. Revisão sistemática de intervenções para prevenção da perda auditiva induzida por ruído ocupacional - uma atualização. CoDAS. 2021;33(4):e20190189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20202019189. PMid:34105690.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/2020...
).

The high prevalence of NIHL has been associated with increased industrialization, difficulties developing and implementing adequate public policies and preventive measures against noise, and difficulties related to information systems and data collection to generate consistent and comparable indicators(77 Nyarubeli IP, Tungu AM, Bråtveit M, Moen BE. Occupational noise exposure and hearing loss: a study of knowledge, attitude and practice among Tanzanian iron and steel workers. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2020;75(4):216-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2019.1607816. PMid:31033430.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2019....
).

Hence, given the limited evidence on NIHL prevention and control and the high NIHL rates worldwide, further studies must be developed in this area, including the development of instruments to estimate occupational and non-occupational noise exposure, as gaps still exist. These include the unstandardized procedures to collect self-reported information, estimate the auditory risk (defining non-occupational risk factors), and establish validated instruments (accessing instruments or instructions for their use)(22 Guest H, Dewey RS, Plack CJ, Couth S, Prendergast G, Bakay W, et al. The Noise Exposure Structured Interview (NESI): an instrument for the comprehensive estimation of lifetime noise exposure. Trends Hear. 2018;22:2331216518803213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2331216518803213. PMid:30295145.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23312165188032...
).

Standardizing instruments in the self-report process can minimize the effects of the subjective perception of risk - as there are different notions of the risk to which workers are exposed even when they have identical functions in common settings. These notions are based on practical knowledge, deductions, conversations with workmates, and information provided by the company(22 Guest H, Dewey RS, Plack CJ, Couth S, Prendergast G, Bakay W, et al. The Noise Exposure Structured Interview (NESI): an instrument for the comprehensive estimation of lifetime noise exposure. Trends Hear. 2018;22:2331216518803213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2331216518803213. PMid:30295145.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/23312165188032...
,88 Arezes P. Percepção do risco de exposição ocupacional ao ruído. Laboreal. 2006;2(1):1-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/laboreal.13742.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/laboreal.13742...
,99 Miranda AL, Jesus LF, Moreira MFR, Oliveira SS. Percepção de risco: estudo com trabalhadores de um estaleiro expostos a metais. Cad Saude Colet. 2019;27(1):93-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1414-462x201900010330.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1414-462x20190...
).

In this perspective, the task-based Noise Exposure Questionnaire (NEQ) was developed in detail to quantify people’s history of exposure to occupational and non-occupational noise. Also, the 1-Minute Noise Screen (NEQ-S) was developed to identify individuals at greater risk of developing NIHL(1010 Johnson TA, Cooper S, Stamper GC, Chertoff M. Noise Exposure Questionnaire: a tool for quantifying annual noise exposure. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(1):14-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070. PMid:28054909.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070...
).

Thus, given the scarcity of such tools in Brazil, the objective of this research was to translate and cross-culturally adapt NEQ and NEQ-S to Brazilian Portuguese.

METHODS

This study was approved by the institution’s Ethics Committee (no. 858/08), and the use of NEQ to this end was authorized by one of its authors.

Description of the instrument

The original NEQ has 10 questions that estimate people’s yearly noise exposure. Their answer options vary - “Never; Every few months; Monthly; Weekly; Daily”; “8 or more; 4 hours up to 8 hours; 1 hour up to 4 hours; Less than 1 hour” (referring to various noise-exposure situations), as well as “Never; Sometimes; Always” (regarding the use of personal protective equipment). There is also the screening instrument, NEQ-S, which can be used to estimate people’s risk of developing NIHL. It has three questions with the following answer options: “Never; Every few months; Monthly; Weekly; Daily”, whose scores are respectively 0 to 4. Screening scores equal to or higher than 5 indicate a greater risk of developing NIHL.

Procedures

The participants who agreed to participate in the research signed an informed consent form.

The study was conducted between March 2020 and December 2020. The translation and cross-cultural adaptation process followed procedures widely used in the health literature(1111 Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014. PMid:11124735.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-20001...
,1212 Dortas SD Jr, Lupi O, Dias GAC, Guimarães MBS, Valle SOR. Adaptação transcultural e validação de questionários na área da saúde. Braz J Allergy Immunol. 2016;4(1):26-30.).

The translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the instrument were conducted in the following stages: initial translation, synthesis of translations, back-translation, expert committee, pretest, and content and layout validation. These stages are described below(1111 Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014. PMid:11124735.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-20001...
,1212 Dortas SD Jr, Lupi O, Dias GAC, Guimarães MBS, Valle SOR. Adaptação transcultural e validação de questionários na área da saúde. Braz J Allergy Immunol. 2016;4(1):26-30.) (Figure 1):

Figure 1
Flowchart - stages in the translation and cross-cultural adaptation of the Noise Exposure Questionnaire
  • Translation and synthesis of the translations: two independent translations were made by two different translators fluent in English - one of them was an audiologist experienced in translation, and the other did not have specific knowledge in the area. Thus, versions T1 and T2 were created. These translations were then synthesized in a consensus meeting between the two authors and four audiologists’ researchers in the area. On this occasion, necessary reformulations were made, and the synthesized version of the initial translations was developed, which was named T12.

  • Back-translation: T12 was back-translated from Portuguese into English by another two independent bilingual translators, who did not know the original instrument. Each back-translator produced a new version, named BT1 and BT2. This stage aimed to evaluate whether the content of the synthesized version was similar to that of the original instrument.

  • Expert committee: the objective of this meeting was to produce the preliminary final version of the instrument to be used in the pretest. The translated versions were analyzed for semantic equivalence (vocabulary and grammar between the two languages, analyzing the reference meaning - denotation - and general meaning - connotation), idiomatic equivalence (proposing substitutes to idioms that are difficult to translate), experiential equivalence (proposing substitutes to experiences unparalleled in the country), and linguistic or conceptual equivalence (for words with different meanings in different cultures) with the original English questionnaires.

  • Pretest: The preliminary final versions were used in a pretest with a group of workers to verify whether the questions were clear and easy to answer and identify possible comprehension problems in the questionnaires.

    • Final stage: After applying the pretest, all reports made throughout the process were submitted to the expert committee along with the preliminary translated version to verify whether the recommended stages had been followed and whether the reports reflected the process. Based on pretest results, small necessary final adjustments to the questionnaires were proposed.

To ensure that the pretest stage was adequate, the instrument was applied to a sample of individuals with similar characteristics to those for whom it had been designed(1111 Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014. PMid:11124735.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-20001...
). The sample inclusion criteria were as follows: individuals older than 18 years; of both sexes; actively working at the university where the study was conducted; able to read and write; not having neurological, cognitive, and/or psychiatric disorders that might keep them from understanding the questions; having been submitted to audiometry at the institution’s audiology service within the previous year. The exclusion criteria were as follows: having any limiting factor that kept them from reading and filling out the questionnaires; having a conductive hearing loss.

Altogether, 62 workers participated in this stage. They worked in various areas (administration, kitchen, maintenance, metalworking, woodworking, general services, construction, and engineering) at the institution (public university) where the study was conducted, as recommended by the methodological reference used(1111 Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014. PMid:11124735.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-20001...
). Two participants were excluded for not presenting the audiological examination in the stipulated time. Hence, the final sample had 60 participants.

Workers were contacted and invited to participate in the research. After agreeing and signing an informed consent form, participants answered the full questionnaires (including NEQ and NEQ-S). Then, they evaluated the questionnaires regarding comprehension, layout, clarity, and writing. They were also encouraged to suggest improvements when they found them appropriate.

Statistical analysis

Reliability was verified with Cohen’s kappa test, and the internal consistency was analyzed with Cronbach’s alpha coefficient. Alpha (or kappa) values lower than 0.21 indicate weak; from 0.21 to 0.40, fair; from 0.41 to 0.60, moderate; from 0.61 to 0.80, substantial; and higher than 0.80, almost perfect internal consistency (or agreement)(1313 Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529310. PMid:843571.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529310...
).

RESULTS

Sample characterization

The 60 participants had a mean age of 44 years (SD = 12; Min: 22; Max: 65); 70% were males. Regarding educational attainment, most of them (47%) had a bachelor’s degree, followed by 43% with a high school degree; 10% of the participants had completed middle school.

As for the main characteristics of noise exposure, 52% were exposed to occupation noise and 48%, to non-occupational noise. In the audiometry, 68% of the assessed workers had normal hearing thresholds (up to 25 dB HL) in the left ear and 63%, in the right ear (Table 1).

Table 1
Sample characterization regarding noise exposure, hearing protection device use, and audiometry certificate

Questionnaires

In general, the translated and back-translated NEQ and NEQ-S versions were similar regarding the general and reference meanings. Nonetheless, some changes (word and sentence adaptations, exclusions, and insertions) were made because some questions did not reflect Brazilian reality. Divergences were solved by consensus in the expert committee to make the questionnaires easier for the study population to understand.

The changes made were related to native language situations, colloquialisms, verbal phrases, and more than one possible translation.

The original versions, synthesis of the translations, synthesis of back-translations, and preliminary version (after expert committee analysis) are presented in Charts 1 and 2.

Chart 1
Questions in the Noise Exposure Questionnaire or Questionário de Exposição ao Ruído in the translation and cross-cultural adaptation process

When translations were synthesized, it was decided to merge questions 10 and 11 into one (question 10), adjusting it to the Brazilian situation. These questions in the original NEQ use seasons of the year as a reference, addressing climatic conditions of the place of origin of the questionnaire and the local “summer job” tradition (Chart 1).

There was also a change in question 1 in NEQ-S, which dealt with firearm use - which in general is not part of the Brazilian culture. This question was completely changed, merging three other questions present in Appendix A of the reference article(1010 Johnson TA, Cooper S, Stamper GC, Chertoff M. Noise Exposure Questionnaire: a tool for quantifying annual noise exposure. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(1):14-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070. PMid:28054909.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070...
) (Chart 2).

Chart 2
Questions in the 1-Minute Noise Screen or Triagem de Exposição ao Ruído de 1-Minuto in the translation and cross-cultural adaptation process

Moreover, the term “earplug” was adjusted to “hearing protection device”, according to our reality. Also, an explanatory glossary was added in parentheses: “earplugs or earmuffs” (Chart 1).

After the back-translation stage, the back-translated versions were compared with the original ones, highlighting differences such as verb tenses, conditional rules, false cognates, and synonyms. Then, in the expert committee analysis, these differences were reviewed, making the necessary adaptation of specific words (Charts 1 and 2).

In question 3 in NEQ, the word “religious” was included because such events use amplified sound and are commonly attended by Brazilians. In question 4, the words “buggy/kart” were included in the category of quadricycles because they are the most used names for them. In question 9, the term “sound speaker” was used instead of “music speaker” because they can be used for ends other than music, such as radio news and podcasts.

In the pretest, participants had no difficulties understanding and answering the questions in either questionnaire. This was true to both closed-ended and open-ended questions - i.e., 7 and 10, which asked them to describe the instrument they played (when applicable) or the services carried out in noisy environments.

After the pretest, the content and layout of the questionnaires were submitted for validation. In this stage, the reports with the comments of the target population and the observations of the researcher who accompanied the application of the instruments were presented to the expert committee. Some sentences and specific words needed small changes; they were adapted with experiential/semantic equivalence while maintaining them as close as possible to the original version. The final versions are presented in Appendices A Appendix A Final version: Noise Exposure Questionnaire - NEQ (Johnson et al. (10)) translated and adapted to Brazilian Portuguese.) Noise Exposure Questionnaire - NEQ Please answer the following questions about yourself, your hearing, and any noise you may have been around during the past year. Write an answer in the blank [______] or check [ x ] the best answer to each question. Please answer these questions about any loud sounds. DURING THE PAST YEAR (12 months): 1 Other than in your paid work (considering housework), how often have you used electrical tools, chainsaws, or other noisy working tools? □ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily If you used electrical tools, for how long, on average, did you use them each time? □ For 8 or more hours □ For 4 to 8 hours □ For 1 to 4 horas □ Less than 1 hour If you used electrical tools, how often did you use hearing protection devices (earplugs or earmuffs) during the activity? □ Never □ Sometimes □ Always 2 Other than in your paid work (considering housework), how often have you driven heavy vehicles or operated noisy machines (e.g., tractors, trucks, farm or yard machines quintal, such as lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and blower vacs)? □ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily If you drove/operated noisy machines, for how long, on average, did you do it each time? □ 8 or more hours □ For 4 to 8 hours □ For 1 to 4 hours □ Less than 1 hour If you drove/operated noisy machines, how often did you use hearing protection devices (earplugs or earmuffs) during the activity? □ Never □ Sometimes □ Always 3 How often have you gone to car or truck races, sports, commercial, school, or religious events, music concerts or shows, parties, or any other events with loudspeakers used to make announcements or play music? □ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily If you went to such events, how long did each one last on average? □ 8 or more hours □ For 4 to 8 hours □ For 1 to 4 hours □ Less than 1 hour If you went to such events, how often did you use hearing protection devices (earplugs or earmuffs) during the activity? □ Never □ Sometimes □ Always 4 Please, continue answering the following questions regarding any intense sound. OVER THE LAST YEAR (12 months): Other than cars, how often did you drive or operated motor vehicles, such as motorcycles, jet-skis, speedboats, all-terrain vehicles, buggies, or karts? □ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily If you drove motor vehicles, for how long, on average, did you drive them each time? □ 8 or more hours □ For 4 to 8 hours □ For 1 to 4 hours □ Less than 1 hour If you drove motor vehicles, how often did you use hearing protection devices (earplugs or earmuffs) during the activity? □ Never □ Sometimes □ Always 5 How often did you fly in or pilot a small or private airplane? □ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily If you flew in one of these airplanes, how long did each flight last on average? □ 8 or more hours □ For 4 to 8 hours □ For 1 to 4 hours □ Less than 1 hour If you flew in one of these airplanes, how often did you use hearing protection devices (earplugs or earmuffs) during the activity? □ Never □ Sometimes □ Always 6 How often did you fire or were near firearms, such as rifles, pistols, shotguns, etc.? □ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily If you fired or were near firearms, how many shots, on average, did you give or witness each time? _________ shotguns/rifle shots each time. _________ pistol shots each time. If you fired or were near firearms, how often did you use hearing protection devices (earplugs or earmuffs) during the activity? □ Never □ Sometimes □ Always 7 How often did you play a musical instrument? □ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily If you played an instrument, please, tell us which one it was: __________________________________ If you played a musical instrument, for how long did you play it on average? □ 8 or more hours □ For 4 to 8 hours □ For 1 to 4 hours □ Less than 1 hour If you played a musical instrument, how often did you use hearing protection devices (earplugs or earmuffs) while you play it? □ Never □ Sometimes □ Always Please, continue answering the following questions regarding any intense sound. OVER THE LAST YEAR (12 months): 8 How often did you listen to music, radio programs, etc., wearing earphones? □ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily If you wore earphones, for how long, on average, did you use them each time? □ 8 or more hours □ For 4 to 8 hours □ For 1 to 4 hours □ Less than 1 hour 9 Apart from music concerts and wearing earphones (already approached in questions 3 and 8), how often did you listen to music, radio programs, etc. on loudspeakers in the car or at home? □ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily For how long, on average, did you listen to it each time? □ 8 or more hours □ For 4 to 8 hours □ For 1 to 4 hours □ Less than 1 hour 10 Over the last year, did you work in any noisy formal or informal job, such as construction, factory, gardening, carwash, or other indoor or outdoor work near noisy equipment or machines? By intense sound in the noisy work setting, we mean it was so intense that you would need to shout or speak loudly for someone to hear you one meter away. □ Yes □ Νο If so, please describe the noisy work (setting): ____________________________________________________________________________ If you worked in a noisy work (setting), please estimate the number of hours you worked in a normal week: ________ hours worked in a normal week in this job. If you worked in a noisy job (setting), did your employer provide you with hearing protection (earplugs or earmuffs) to wear at work? ð Yes ð No How often did you wear hearing protection (earplugs or earmuffs) when you were near intense noises at work? □ Never □ Sometimes □ Always and B Appendix B Final version: 1-Minute Noise Screen (Johnson et al.(10) ) translated and adapted to Brazilian Portuguese.) 1-Minute Noise Screening OVER THE LAST YEAR (12 months): 1 How often were you exposed to intense sounds that made you have tinnitus, clogged ears, or pain or discomfort in your ears? By intense sound, we mean you would have to shout or speak loudly for someone to hear you one meter away. □ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily 2 How often were you exposed to intense sounds while working in paid work? By intense sound, we mean you would have to shout or speak loudly for someone to hear you one meter away. □ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily 3 Other than in your paid work, how often were you exposed to any other type of intense sound, such as electric tools, loud music, or lawn mowers? By intense sound, we mean you would have to shout or speak loudly for someone to hear you one meter away. □ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily Noise exposure score: __________ How to Calculate Your 1-Minute Noise Screening Score First, ascribe the scores below to your answers to each question: Never Every 2 or 3 months Monthly Weekly Daily Question 1. 0 1 2 3 4 Question 2. 0 1 2 3 4 Question 3. 0 1 2 3 4 Then, sum the three individual scores to obtain the total noise exposure score. Write down the total score in the box in the lower right corner of your card. Read, in the back of this sheet, the explanation of your noise exposure score, as well as suggestions on how to manage the risk of developing noise-induced hearing loss. Example: 1-Minute Noise Screening: Recommendations If your noise score is in this range: Your risk is: Explanation 0 to 4 Lower risk Based on your experience with noise over the last year, your risk of developing noise-induced hearing loss is relatively low - as long as you continue to interact with such noise levels in the future. However, if your exposure increases, your risk of developing hearing loss will also increase. Each person’s tolerance to noise is different, and their susceptibility can hardly be foreseen. Even so, it is important to remember that the risk increases as the sound gets more intense and you spend more time exposed to it and more often. See the hints below to learn how to manage the risk of developing noise-induced hearing loss. Special observation to those who used firearms: If you use firearms, you are at a high risk of hearing loss, even if you use them every 2 or 3 months and your score is low in the 1-Minute Noise Screening. See the hints below to learn what you can do to manage this risk. 5 or more Higher risk Based on your experience with noise over the last year, you are at risk of developing noise-induced hearing loss if you continue to interact with such or higher noise levels in the future. Each person’s tolerance to noise is different, and their susceptibility can hardly be foreseen. Even so, it is important to remember that the risk increases as the sound gets more intense and you spend more time exposed to it and more often. See the hints below to learn how to manage the risk of developing noise-induced hearing loss. What You Can Do to Manage the Risk: Avoid intense noises whenever possible: It may seem redundant to say it, but avoiding intense noises is the first step to preserving your hearing for your whole life. Remember, if you need to shout for someone to hear you one or two meters away, the background noise is probably at a dangerous level. Look for quieter products when shopping for noisy tools or equipment, such as leaf blowers, blower vacs, or lawn mowers. Also, turn down the volume when you are using electronic devices, such as mobiles and music players. Wear hearing protection whenever you are near loud noises: When you cannot avoid intense noises, wear well-fitted hearing protection (earplugs or earmuffs), even in occasional circumstances. Hearing protection can be purchased in various drug, convenience, hardware, and sports stores. Make sure you are well-trained to wear and care for your hearing protection devices and replace them when necessary. The adequate and consistent use of hearing protection can minimize your risk, especially if you use firearms. In this case, exposure to a single shot may be enough to damage your hearing if you are not wearing hearing protection. Have your hearing regularly tested: Keep an eye on your hearing! Have it tested routinely - once a year if you are in the higher-risk group listed above or if you increase your exposure to noise. Follow up on your hearing test results and ask your audiologist to compare your annual tests with the most recent ones to verify any significant changes that may pose a concern. Take care of your ears: Go see a doctor if you notice problems such as sudden hearing changes, pain, ear fullness, or tinnitus. .

Intra-subject NEQ reliability was tested by assessing two questions on noisy work (Question 10 in NEQ and Question 2 in NEQ-S). The kappa agreement test between these combined data was 0.550 (p < 0.001), indicating moderate agreement.

The internal consistency was analyzed with Cronbach's alpha coefficient, whose result was 0.711, indicating substantial internal consistency.

DISCUSSION

Foreign instruments have been increasingly translated and cross-culturally adapted in the last years, enabling their use in other cultures. Hence, their data are ensured to express what they were meant to measure, making it possible to compare such data between different cultures that use standardized instruments. Moreover, they save the time and money spent on producing new instruments(1414 Ferreira L, Neves AN, Campana MB, Tavares MCGCF. Guia da AAOS/IWH: sugestões para adaptação transcultural de escalas. Aval Psicol. 2014;13(3):457-61.,1515 Silva NR, Felipini LMG. Tradução e adaptação transcultural de instrumentos de avaliação em Fonoaudiologia para o português brasileiro: uma análise das diretrizes. Tradterm. 2018;32:32-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.11606/issn.2317-9511.v32i0p32-51.
http://dx.doi.org/10.11606/issn.2317-951...
).

There are currently various translation and cross-cultural adaptation strategies, in which all stages must be given due importance to minimize errors and losses regarding the original characteristics of the instruments - which may occur in such a process(1414 Ferreira L, Neves AN, Campana MB, Tavares MCGCF. Guia da AAOS/IWH: sugestões para adaptação transcultural de escalas. Aval Psicol. 2014;13(3):457-61.,1616 Roediger MA, Marucci MFN, Latorre MRDO, Hearst N, Oliveira C, Duarte YAO, et al. Adaptação transcultural para o idioma português do método de triagem nutricional Determine your nutritional health® para idosos domiciliados. Cien Saude Colet. 2017;22(2):509-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232017222.00542016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1413-812320172...
). Although there is no gold-standard model of translation and cross-cultural adaptation, four essential stages (translation, back-translation, expert committee review, and pretest) are recommended to ensure the validity and reliability of the original instrument(1717 Prodrossimo AF, Dias JPP, Iankilevich L, Souza JM. Validação, tradução e adaptação transcultural de instrumentos de pesquisa clínico-educacionais: uma revisão integrativa. Esp Saúde. 2021;22:e736. http://dx.doi.org/10.22421/1517-7130/es.2021v22.e736.
http://dx.doi.org/10.22421/1517-7130/es....
).

According to the methodological reference(1111 Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014. PMid:11124735.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-20001...
), which is widely used both nationally and internationally(1414 Ferreira L, Neves AN, Campana MB, Tavares MCGCF. Guia da AAOS/IWH: sugestões para adaptação transcultural de escalas. Aval Psicol. 2014;13(3):457-61.), all the abovementioned stages were followed. They aimed at semantic, idiomatic, experiential, and conceptual equivalence between the original text and its translation, trying to solve the difficulties caused by multiple meanings and grammar issues that arose in the process and might have kept the target population from understanding the instrument.

Special care was taken when choosing translators and expert committee members, including professionals with expertise in Audiology and Occupational Health. The sample, in its turn, included different age groups and levels of educational attainment, either exposed or not to occupational noise, thus verifying whether the items were understandable - as well as the applicability of the instrument to a diversified sample, larger than commonly used in the literature(1111 Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014. PMid:11124735.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-20001...
,1515 Silva NR, Felipini LMG. Tradução e adaptação transcultural de instrumentos de avaliação em Fonoaudiologia para o português brasileiro: uma análise das diretrizes. Tradterm. 2018;32:32-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.11606/issn.2317-9511.v32i0p32-51.
http://dx.doi.org/10.11606/issn.2317-951...
,1616 Roediger MA, Marucci MFN, Latorre MRDO, Hearst N, Oliveira C, Duarte YAO, et al. Adaptação transcultural para o idioma português do método de triagem nutricional Determine your nutritional health® para idosos domiciliados. Cien Saude Colet. 2017;22(2):509-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232017222.00542016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1413-812320172...
,1818 Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N. PMid:8263569.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)9...

19 Holanda WTG, Lima MLC, Figueiroa JN. Adaptação transcultural de um instrumento de avaliação do handicap auditivo para portadores de perda auditiva induzida pelo ruído ocupacional. Cien Saude Colet. 2011;16(Supl 1):755-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232011000700006. PMid:21503422.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232011...

20 Hall DA, Zaragoza Domingo S, Hamdache LZ, Manchaiah V, Thammaiah S, Evans C, et al. A good practice guide for translating and adapting hearing-related questionnaires for different languages and cultures. Int J Audiol. 2018;57(3):161-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2017.1393565. PMid:29161914.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2017....
-2121 Medeiros EAS. Desafios para o enfrentamento da pandemia COVID-19 em hospitais universitários. Rev Paul Pediatr. 2020;38:e2020086. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1984-0462/2020/38/2020086. PMid:32320999.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1984-0462/2020...
). Nevertheless, despite all the care taken in sample selection, there may have been some influence from selection bias, which is inherent to any research with a convenience sample.

After applying the pretest, some changes were made to NEQ and NEQ-S questions regarding punctuation, context, and the literal translation process. Two important changes were necessary, namely: merging questions 10 and 11 into one in NEQ (question 10) and replacing items in question 1 in NEQ-S with some of those in the appendix of the original instrument. These changes were made to ensure the compatibility of the questions with the Brazilian reality, making them easier for the target population to understand. It must be pointed out that the expert committee proposed merging questions 10 and 11 of the original instrument to adapt them to the Brazilian reality (climate and tradition), as summer jobs are not usual in our culture. Likewise, question 1 in NEQ-S had to be changed because this screening is meant to indicate the risk for NIHL based on the score of three questions. Since hunting and using firearms are not usual for most Brazilians, the expert committee decided to use another three questions taken from an additional instrument developed by the authors(1010 Johnson TA, Cooper S, Stamper GC, Chertoff M. Noise Exposure Questionnaire: a tool for quantifying annual noise exposure. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(1):14-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070. PMid:28054909.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070...
), which investigate symptoms (tinnitus, “full” ear feeling, earaches, or discomfort) that may be present after exposure to intense noise.

The need to change questions or statements from original instruments is reported by researchers in the area, who emphasize that cultural differences may require such changes, especially when they involve specific conditions, as previously mentioned(2222 Herdman M, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X. A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: the universalist approach. Qual Life Res. 1998;7(4):323-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008846618880. PMid:9610216.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:100884661888...
) and observed in the present study.

NEQ and NEQ-S are relatively new instruments, published in 2017(1010 Johnson TA, Cooper S, Stamper GC, Chertoff M. Noise Exposure Questionnaire: a tool for quantifying annual noise exposure. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(1):14-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070. PMid:28054909.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070...
). Therefore, no other studies on their translation and cross-cultural adaptation to other languages and countries were found, preventing comparison with other versions.

Regarding the intra-subject reliability of the instrument, the original study(1010 Johnson TA, Cooper S, Stamper GC, Chertoff M. Noise Exposure Questionnaire: a tool for quantifying annual noise exposure. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(1):14-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070. PMid:28054909.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070...
) used the same methodology, comparing two repeated questions on the same topic (noisy work). Their results were similar to ours (kappa = 0.590 - moderate agreement).

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient was 0.711, indicating substantial internal consistency in this instrument analysis. This is a reliability measure that reflects how questionnaire items are mutually related. It is important and desirable that this value be between 0.70 and 0.95(2323 Valim MD, Marziale MHP, Hayashida M, Rocha FLR, Santos JLF. Validade e confiabilidade do Questionário de Adesão às Precauções-Padrão. Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:87. PMid:26759967.), as the one verified in this study.

Even though other instruments quantify yearly noise exposure(2424 Neitzel R, Seixas N, Olson J, Daniell W, Goldman B. Nonoccupational noise: exposures associated with routine activities. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;115(1):237-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1615569. PMid:14759016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1615569...
), NEQ uses simple task-based questions. Hence, it can be used to estimate people’s yearly exposure to either occupational or non-occupational noise. It also has the screening version (NEQ-S), which quickly and easily identifies individuals at risk of NIHL.

Some studies have been using NEQ to characterize participants’ doses of noise exposure - e.g., Grinn et al.(2525 Grinn SK, Wiseman KB, Baker JA, Le Prell CG. Hidden hearing loss? No effect of common recreational noise exposure on cochlear nerve response amplitude in humans. Front Neurosci. 2017;11:465. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00465. PMid:28919848.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.004...
), Spankovich et al.(2626 Spankovich C, Le Prell CG, Lobarinas E, Hood LJ. Noise history and auditory function in young adults with and without type 1 diabetes mellitus. Ear Hear. 2017;38(6):724-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000457. PMid:28678080.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000...
), Bernard et al.(2727 Bernard M, Chang C, Ghane G, Head T, Kore S, Lombardo N, et al. Research project: hidden hearing loss in music students. Can Audiologist [Internet]. 2019 Mar [citado em 2022 Fev 16];6(2):1-22. Disponível em: https://canadianaudiologist.ca/hearing-loss-in-music-students/
https://canadianaudiologist.ca/hearing-l...
), Athirah and Shahida(2828 Athirah B, Shahida N. Occupational noise exposure among airport workers in Malaysia: an ergonomic investigation. J Phys Conf Ser. 2019;1262(1):012010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1262/1/012010.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1262...
), Powell(2929 Powell S [Internet]. Clinician approaches to noise-exposed, “normal” hearing ears: investigating the need & reliability of a candidate measure of human vulnerability to noise damage [tese]. Storrs (CT): Universidade de Connecticut; 2020 [citado em 2022 Fev 16]. Disponível em: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/2556
https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertati...
). They used this instrument to calculate cumulated yearly doses of noise based on self-reported activities.

Hence, standardizing new instruments and making them available are important strategies to develop science and have them used by health professionals, with an impact on clinical practice. They may also be useful as screening instruments to identify harmful day-to-day noises, helping better plan interventions, especially in the occupational area(1010 Johnson TA, Cooper S, Stamper GC, Chertoff M. Noise Exposure Questionnaire: a tool for quantifying annual noise exposure. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(1):14-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070. PMid:28054909.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070...
,1616 Roediger MA, Marucci MFN, Latorre MRDO, Hearst N, Oliveira C, Duarte YAO, et al. Adaptação transcultural para o idioma português do método de triagem nutricional Determine your nutritional health® para idosos domiciliados. Cien Saude Colet. 2017;22(2):509-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232017222.00542016.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1413-812320172...
,1919 Holanda WTG, Lima MLC, Figueiroa JN. Adaptação transcultural de um instrumento de avaliação do handicap auditivo para portadores de perda auditiva induzida pelo ruído ocupacional. Cien Saude Colet. 2011;16(Supl 1):755-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232011000700006. PMid:21503422.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232011...
,2020 Hall DA, Zaragoza Domingo S, Hamdache LZ, Manchaiah V, Thammaiah S, Evans C, et al. A good practice guide for translating and adapting hearing-related questionnaires for different languages and cultures. Int J Audiol. 2018;57(3):161-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2017.1393565. PMid:29161914.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2017....
).

In the next stage of our study, the translated and adapted instrument will be applied in order to determine NEQ diagnostic values (sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy), comparing it with the gold-standard examination (audiometry) to identify NIHL.

CONCLUSION

The translation and cross-cultural adaptation were made according to the methodology indicated in the national and international literature. They followed the stages of translation, back-translation, expert committee, and pretest, including the equivalences necessary to maintain the face and content validity of the original instrument. Making NEQ and NEQ-S available in Brazilian Portuguese opens new fields of research to address yearly noise exposure quantification more in-depth.

Appendix A Final version: Noise Exposure Questionnaire - NEQ (Johnson et al. (1010 Johnson TA, Cooper S, Stamper GC, Chertoff M. Noise Exposure Questionnaire: a tool for quantifying annual noise exposure. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(1):14-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070. PMid:28054909.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070...
)) translated and adapted to Brazilian Portuguese.)

Noise Exposure Questionnaire - NEQ

Please answer the following questions about yourself, your hearing, and any noise you may have been around during the past year. Write an answer in the blank [______] or check [ x ] the best answer to each question.
Please answer these questions about any loud sounds. DURING THE PAST YEAR (12 months):
1 Other than in your paid work (considering housework), how often have you used electrical tools, chainsaws, or other noisy working tools?
□ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily
If you used electrical tools, for how long, on average, did you use them each time?
□ For 8 or more hours □ For 4 to 8 hours □ For 1 to 4 horas □ Less than 1 hour
If you used electrical tools, how often did you use hearing protection devices (earplugs or earmuffs) during the activity?
□ Never □ Sometimes □ Always
2 Other than in your paid work (considering housework), how often have you driven heavy vehicles or operated noisy machines (e.g., tractors, trucks, farm or yard machines quintal, such as lawn mowers, leaf blowers, and blower vacs)?
□ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily
If you drove/operated noisy machines, for how long, on average, did you do it each time?
□ 8 or more hours □ For 4 to 8 hours □ For 1 to 4 hours □ Less than 1 hour
If you drove/operated noisy machines, how often did you use hearing protection devices (earplugs or earmuffs) during the activity?
□ Never □ Sometimes □ Always
3 How often have you gone to car or truck races, sports, commercial, school, or religious events, music concerts or shows, parties, or any other events with loudspeakers used to make announcements or play music?
□ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily
If you went to such events, how long did each one last on average?
□ 8 or more hours □ For 4 to 8 hours □ For 1 to 4 hours □ Less than 1 hour
If you went to such events, how often did you use hearing protection devices (earplugs or earmuffs) during the activity?
□ Never □ Sometimes □ Always
4 Please, continue answering the following questions regarding any intense sound.
OVER THE LAST YEAR (12 months):
Other than cars, how often did you drive or operated motor vehicles, such as motorcycles, jet-skis, speedboats, all-terrain vehicles, buggies, or karts?
□ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily
If you drove motor vehicles, for how long, on average, did you drive them each time?
□ 8 or more hours □ For 4 to 8 hours □ For 1 to 4 hours □ Less than 1 hour
If you drove motor vehicles, how often did you use hearing protection devices (earplugs or earmuffs) during the activity?
□ Never □ Sometimes □ Always
5 How often did you fly in or pilot a small or private airplane?
□ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily
If you flew in one of these airplanes, how long did each flight last on average?
□ 8 or more hours □ For 4 to 8 hours □ For 1 to 4 hours □ Less than 1 hour
If you flew in one of these airplanes, how often did you use hearing protection devices (earplugs or earmuffs) during the activity?
□ Never □ Sometimes □ Always
6 How often did you fire or were near firearms, such as rifles, pistols, shotguns, etc.?
□ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily
If you fired or were near firearms, how many shots, on average, did you give or witness each time?
_________ shotguns/rifle shots each time. _________ pistol shots each time.
If you fired or were near firearms, how often did you use hearing protection devices (earplugs or earmuffs) during the activity?
□ Never □ Sometimes □ Always
7 How often did you play a musical instrument?
□ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily
If you played an instrument, please, tell us which one it was: __________________________________
If you played a musical instrument, for how long did you play it on average?
□ 8 or more hours □ For 4 to 8 hours □ For 1 to 4 hours □ Less than 1 hour
If you played a musical instrument, how often did you use hearing protection devices (earplugs or earmuffs) while you play it?
□ Never □ Sometimes □ Always
Please, continue answering the following questions regarding any intense sound.
OVER THE LAST YEAR (12 months):
8 How often did you listen to music, radio programs, etc., wearing earphones?
□ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily
If you wore earphones, for how long, on average, did you use them each time?
□ 8 or more hours □ For 4 to 8 hours □ For 1 to 4 hours □ Less than 1 hour
9 Apart from music concerts and wearing earphones (already approached in questions 3 and 8), how often did you listen to music, radio programs, etc. on loudspeakers in the car or at home?
□ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily
For how long, on average, did you listen to it each time?
□ 8 or more hours □ For 4 to 8 hours □ For 1 to 4 hours □ Less than 1 hour
10 Over the last year, did you work in any noisy formal or informal job, such as construction, factory, gardening, carwash, or other indoor or outdoor work near noisy equipment or machines? By intense sound in the noisy work setting, we mean it was so intense that you would need to shout or speak loudly for someone to hear you one meter away.
□ Yes □ Νο
If so, please describe the noisy work (setting):
____________________________________________________________________________
If you worked in a noisy work (setting), please estimate the number of hours you worked in a normal week:
________ hours worked in a normal week in this job.
If you worked in a noisy job (setting), did your employer provide you with hearing protection (earplugs or earmuffs) to wear at work? ð Yes ð No
How often did you wear hearing protection (earplugs or earmuffs) when you were near intense noises at work?
□ Never □ Sometimes □ Always

Appendix B Final version: 1-Minute Noise Screen (Johnson et al.(1010 Johnson TA, Cooper S, Stamper GC, Chertoff M. Noise Exposure Questionnaire: a tool for quantifying annual noise exposure. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(1):14-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070. PMid:28054909.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070...
) ) translated and adapted to Brazilian Portuguese.)

1-Minute Noise Screening
OVER THE LAST YEAR (12 months):
1 How often were you exposed to intense sounds that made you have tinnitus, clogged ears, or pain or discomfort in your ears? By intense sound, we mean you would have to shout or speak loudly for someone to hear you one meter away.
□ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily
2 How often were you exposed to intense sounds while working in paid work? By intense sound, we mean you would have to shout or speak loudly for someone to hear you one meter away.
□ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily
3 Other than in your paid work, how often were you exposed to any other type of intense sound, such as electric tools, loud music, or lawn mowers? By intense sound, we mean you would have to shout or speak loudly for someone to hear you one meter away.
□ Never □ Every 2 or 3 months □ Monthly □ Weekly □ Daily
Noise exposure score:
__________

How to Calculate Your

1-Minute Noise Screening Score

First, ascribe the scores below to your answers to each question:

Never Every 2 or 3 months Monthly Weekly Daily
Question 1. 0 1 2 3 4
Question 2. 0 1 2 3 4
Question 3. 0 1 2 3 4

Then, sum the three individual scores to obtain the total noise exposure score. Write down the total score in the box in the lower right corner of your card.

Read, in the back of this sheet, the explanation of your noise exposure score, as well as suggestions on how to manage the risk of developing noise-induced hearing loss.

Example:

1-Minute Noise Screening: Recommendations

If your noise score is in this range: Your risk is: Explanation
0 to 4 Lower risk Based on your experience with noise over the last year, your risk of developing noise-induced hearing loss is relatively low - as long as you continue to interact with such noise levels in the future. However, if your exposure increases, your risk of developing hearing loss will also increase.
Each person’s tolerance to noise is different, and their susceptibility can hardly be foreseen. Even so, it is important to remember that the risk increases as the sound gets more intense and you spend more time exposed to it and more often. See the hints below to learn how to manage the risk of developing noise-induced hearing loss.
Special observation to those who used firearms: If you use firearms, you are at a high risk of hearing loss, even if you use them every 2 or 3 months and your score is low in the 1-Minute Noise Screening. See the hints below to learn what you can do to manage this risk.
5 or more Higher risk Based on your experience with noise over the last year, you are at risk of developing noise-induced hearing loss if you continue to interact with such or higher noise levels in the future.
Each person’s tolerance to noise is different, and their susceptibility can hardly be foreseen. Even so, it is important to remember that the risk increases as the sound gets more intense and you spend more time exposed to it and more often. See the hints below to learn how to manage the risk of developing noise-induced hearing loss.

What You Can Do to Manage the Risk:

Avoid intense noises whenever possible: It may seem redundant to say it, but avoiding intense noises is the first step to preserving your hearing for your whole life. Remember, if you need to shout for someone to hear you one or two meters away, the background noise is probably at a dangerous level. Look for quieter products when shopping for noisy tools or equipment, such as leaf blowers, blower vacs, or lawn mowers. Also, turn down the volume when you are using electronic devices, such as mobiles and music players.

Wear hearing protection whenever you are near loud noises: When you cannot avoid intense noises, wear well-fitted hearing protection (earplugs or earmuffs), even in occasional circumstances. Hearing protection can be purchased in various drug, convenience, hardware, and sports stores. Make sure you are well-trained to wear and care for your hearing protection devices and replace them when necessary. The adequate and consistent use of hearing protection can minimize your risk, especially if you use firearms. In this case, exposure to a single shot may be enough to damage your hearing if you are not wearing hearing protection.

Have your hearing regularly tested: Keep an eye on your hearing! Have it tested routinely - once a year if you are in the higher-risk group listed above or if you increase your exposure to noise. Follow up on your hearing test results and ask your audiologist to compare your annual tests with the most recent ones to verify any significant changes that may pose a concern.

Take care of your ears: Go see a doctor if you notice problems such as sudden hearing changes, pain, ear fullness, or tinnitus.

  • Study conducted at Departamento de Fisioterapia, Fonoaudiologia e Terapia Ocupacional, Faculdade de Medicina - FMUSP, Universidade de São Paulo - São Paulo (SP), Brasil.
  • Financial support: nothing to declare.

REFERÊNCIAS

  • 1
    Liberman MC, Kujawa SG. Cochlear synaptopathy in acquired sensorineural hearing loss: manifestations and mechanisms. Hear Res. 2017;349:138-47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2017.01.003 PMid:28087419.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2017.01.003
  • 2
    Guest H, Dewey RS, Plack CJ, Couth S, Prendergast G, Bakay W, et al. The Noise Exposure Structured Interview (NESI): an instrument for the comprehensive estimation of lifetime noise exposure. Trends Hear. 2018;22:2331216518803213. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2331216518803213 PMid:30295145.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2331216518803213
  • 3
    Griest-Hines SE, Bramhall NF, Reavis KM, Theodoroff SM, Henry JA. Development and initial validation of the Lifetime Exposure to Noise and Solvents Questionnaire in U.S. service members and veterans. Am J Audiol. 2021;30(3S):810-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJA-20-00145 PMid:34000200.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2021_AJA-20-00145
  • 4
    Hoffman HJ, Dobie RA, Losonczy KG, Themann CL, Flamme GA. Declining prevalence of hearing loss in US adults aged 20 to 69 years. JAMA Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2017;143(3):274-85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2016.3527 PMid:27978564.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/jamaoto.2016.3527
  • 5
    Nelson DI, Nelson RY, Concha-Barrientos M, Fingerhut M. The global burden of occupational noise-induced hearing loss. Am J Ind Med. 2005;48(6):446-58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20223 PMid:16299704.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ajim.20223
  • 6
    Samelli AG, Matas CG, Gomes RF, Morata TC. Revisão sistemática de intervenções para prevenção da perda auditiva induzida por ruído ocupacional - uma atualização. CoDAS. 2021;33(4):e20190189. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20202019189 PMid:34105690.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-1782/20202019189
  • 7
    Nyarubeli IP, Tungu AM, Bråtveit M, Moen BE. Occupational noise exposure and hearing loss: a study of knowledge, attitude and practice among Tanzanian iron and steel workers. Arch Environ Occup Health. 2020;75(4):216-25. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2019.1607816 PMid:31033430.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/19338244.2019.1607816
  • 8
    Arezes P. Percepção do risco de exposição ocupacional ao ruído. Laboreal. 2006;2(1):1-7. http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/laboreal.13742
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.4000/laboreal.13742
  • 9
    Miranda AL, Jesus LF, Moreira MFR, Oliveira SS. Percepção de risco: estudo com trabalhadores de um estaleiro expostos a metais. Cad Saude Colet. 2019;27(1):93-9. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1414-462x201900010330
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1414-462x201900010330
  • 10
    Johnson TA, Cooper S, Stamper GC, Chertoff M. Noise Exposure Questionnaire: a tool for quantifying annual noise exposure. J Am Acad Audiol. 2017;28(1):14-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070 PMid:28054909.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.3766/jaaa.15070
  • 11
    Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014 PMid:11124735.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/00007632-200012150-00014
  • 12
    Dortas SD Jr, Lupi O, Dias GAC, Guimarães MBS, Valle SOR. Adaptação transcultural e validação de questionários na área da saúde. Braz J Allergy Immunol. 2016;4(1):26-30.
  • 13
    Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-74. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529310 PMid:843571.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2529310
  • 14
    Ferreira L, Neves AN, Campana MB, Tavares MCGCF. Guia da AAOS/IWH: sugestões para adaptação transcultural de escalas. Aval Psicol. 2014;13(3):457-61.
  • 15
    Silva NR, Felipini LMG. Tradução e adaptação transcultural de instrumentos de avaliação em Fonoaudiologia para o português brasileiro: uma análise das diretrizes. Tradterm. 2018;32:32-51. http://dx.doi.org/10.11606/issn.2317-9511.v32i0p32-51
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.11606/issn.2317-9511.v32i0p32-51
  • 16
    Roediger MA, Marucci MFN, Latorre MRDO, Hearst N, Oliveira C, Duarte YAO, et al. Adaptação transcultural para o idioma português do método de triagem nutricional Determine your nutritional health® para idosos domiciliados. Cien Saude Colet. 2017;22(2):509-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232017222.00542016
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1413-81232017222.00542016
  • 17
    Prodrossimo AF, Dias JPP, Iankilevich L, Souza JM. Validação, tradução e adaptação transcultural de instrumentos de pesquisa clínico-educacionais: uma revisão integrativa. Esp Saúde. 2021;22:e736. http://dx.doi.org/10.22421/1517-7130/es.2021v22.e736
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.22421/1517-7130/es.2021v22.e736
  • 18
    Guillemin F, Bombardier C, Beaton D. Cross-cultural adaptation of health-related quality of life measures: literature review and proposed guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 1993;46(12):1417-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N PMid:8263569.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0895-4356(93)90142-N
  • 19
    Holanda WTG, Lima MLC, Figueiroa JN. Adaptação transcultural de um instrumento de avaliação do handicap auditivo para portadores de perda auditiva induzida pelo ruído ocupacional. Cien Saude Colet. 2011;16(Supl 1):755-67. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232011000700006 PMid:21503422.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1413-81232011000700006
  • 20
    Hall DA, Zaragoza Domingo S, Hamdache LZ, Manchaiah V, Thammaiah S, Evans C, et al. A good practice guide for translating and adapting hearing-related questionnaires for different languages and cultures. Int J Audiol. 2018;57(3):161-75. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2017.1393565 PMid:29161914.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/14992027.2017.1393565
  • 21
    Medeiros EAS. Desafios para o enfrentamento da pandemia COVID-19 em hospitais universitários. Rev Paul Pediatr. 2020;38:e2020086. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1984-0462/2020/38/2020086 PMid:32320999.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1984-0462/2020/38/2020086
  • 22
    Herdman M, Fox-Rushby J, Badia X. A model of equivalence in the cultural adaptation of HRQoL instruments: the universalist approach. Qual Life Res. 1998;7(4):323-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008846618880 PMid:9610216.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1008846618880
  • 23
    Valim MD, Marziale MHP, Hayashida M, Rocha FLR, Santos JLF. Validade e confiabilidade do Questionário de Adesão às Precauções-Padrão. Rev Saude Publica. 2015;49:87. PMid:26759967.
  • 24
    Neitzel R, Seixas N, Olson J, Daniell W, Goldman B. Nonoccupational noise: exposures associated with routine activities. J Acoust Soc Am. 2004;115(1):237-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1615569 PMid:14759016.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1121/1.1615569
  • 25
    Grinn SK, Wiseman KB, Baker JA, Le Prell CG. Hidden hearing loss? No effect of common recreational noise exposure on cochlear nerve response amplitude in humans. Front Neurosci. 2017;11:465. http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00465 PMid:28919848.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2017.00465
  • 26
    Spankovich C, Le Prell CG, Lobarinas E, Hood LJ. Noise history and auditory function in young adults with and without type 1 diabetes mellitus. Ear Hear. 2017;38(6):724-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000457 PMid:28678080.
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0000000000000457
  • 27
    Bernard M, Chang C, Ghane G, Head T, Kore S, Lombardo N, et al. Research project: hidden hearing loss in music students. Can Audiologist [Internet]. 2019 Mar [citado em 2022 Fev 16];6(2):1-22. Disponível em: https://canadianaudiologist.ca/hearing-loss-in-music-students/
    » https://canadianaudiologist.ca/hearing-loss-in-music-students/
  • 28
    Athirah B, Shahida N. Occupational noise exposure among airport workers in Malaysia: an ergonomic investigation. J Phys Conf Ser. 2019;1262(1):012010. http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1262/1/012010
    » http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1262/1/012010
  • 29
    Powell S [Internet]. Clinician approaches to noise-exposed, “normal” hearing ears: investigating the need & reliability of a candidate measure of human vulnerability to noise damage [tese]. Storrs (CT): Universidade de Connecticut; 2020 [citado em 2022 Fev 16]. Disponível em: https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/2556
    » https://opencommons.uconn.edu/dissertations/2556
  • 30
    Brasil. Ministério do Trabalho. Portaria SSST nº 19, de 9 de abril de 1998. Diário Oficial da União; Brasília; 22 abr. 1998.

Publication Dates

  • Publication in this collection
    07 July 2023
  • Date of issue
    2023

History

  • Received
    02 Mar 2022
  • Accepted
    19 May 2022
Sociedade Brasileira de Fonoaudiologia Al. Jaú, 684, 7º andar, 01420-002 São Paulo - SP Brasil, Tel./Fax 55 11 - 3873-4211 - São Paulo - SP - Brazil
E-mail: revista@codas.org.br