Journals / Erciyes Medical Journal / 2022 / Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 3

Adaptation, Validity, and Reliability of the Turkish version of Misophonia Assessment Questionnaire

Pages
286–292
Publication Date
2022-10-11
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

A significant correlation between the MAQ and VAS scores was demonstrated (r=0.811, p

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Objective: Misophonia is a disorder in which certain specific patterns of sound provoke a strong negative reaction.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This extreme sensitivity to typically ordinary sounds can cause significant disruption to daily life.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:A significant correlation between the MAQ and VAS scores was demonstrated (r=0.811, p
🔬Design:Survey & Empirical Study
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Objective: Misophonia is a disorder in which certain specific patterns of sound provoke a strong negative reaction. This extreme sensitivity to typically ordinary sounds can cause significant disruption to daily life. The aim of this study was to investigate the validity and reliability of the Turkish version of the Misophonia Assessment Questionnaire (MAQ). This will be a useful tool to accurately assess the severity and frequency of misophonia in the Turkish population. Materials and Methods: A total of 210 patients who presented with complaints of misophonia were enrolled in the study. The mean age of the participants was 27.85±9.49 years (range: 18–57 years). The construct validity of the MAQ was determined using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and the internal consistency was evaluated using the Cronbach alpha value. The concurrent validity of the MAQ was determined based on the directionality of its relationship with a visual analog scale (VAS) and the strength and of the correlation using Pearson’s correlation coefficient. Results: The mean MAQ total score was 24.33±13.28. The EFA results revealed a 4-factor structure. The reliability of the instrument was extremely high: the Cronbach alpha for the total scale was 0.94 and subscale values ranged from 0.76 to 0.93. In a test-retest reliability assessment, the intraclass correlation coefficient was 0.970. A significant correlation between the MAQ and VAS scores was demonstrated (r=0.811, p

🔖

Cite This Article

AKSOY, S., ALTIN, B. (2022). Adaptation, Validity, and Reliability of the Turkish version of Misophonia Assessment Questionnaire. Erciyes Medical Journal, Cilt: 44 - Sayı: 3, 286–292. https://ajindex.com/articles/502099

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (17)

  1. Bernstein RE, Angell KL, Dehle CM. A brief course of cognitive behavioural therapy for the treatment of misophonia: a case example. Cogn Behav Ther 2013; 6: e10
  2. Jastreboff PJ, Jastreboff MM. Decreased sound tolerance: hyperacusis, misophonia, diplacousis, and polyacousis. Handb Clin Neurol 2015; 129: 375–87
  3. Dozier TH, Lopez M, Pearson C. Proposed diagnostic criteria for misophonia: A multisensory conditioned aversive reflex disorder. Front Psychol 2017; 8: 1975
  4. Schröder A, Vulink N, Denys D. Misophonia: diagnostic criteria for a new psychiatric disorder. PLoS One 2013; 8(1): e54706
  5. Edelstein M, Brang D, Rouw R, Ramachandran VS. Misophonia: physiological investigations and case descriptions. Front Hum Neurosci 2013; 7: 296
  6. Zhou X, Wu MS, Storch EA. Misophonia symptoms among Chinese university students: incidence, associated impairment, and clinical correlates. J Obsess-Compuls Rel 2017; 14: 7–12
  7. Wu MS, Lewin AB, Murphy TK, Storch EA. Misophonia: incidence, phenomenology, and clinical correlates in an undergraduate student sample. J Clin Psychol 2014; 70(10): 994–007
  8. Jastreboff PJ, Jastreboff MM. Treatments for decreased sound tolerance (hyperacusis and misophonia). Semin Hear 2014; 35(2): 105– 20
  9. Schwartz P, Leyendecker J, Conlon M. Hyperacusis and misophonia: the lesser-known siblings of tinnitus. Minn Med 2011; 94(11): 42–3
  10. Daniels EC, Rodriguez A, Zabelina DL. Severity of misophonia symptoms is associated with worse cognitive control when exposed to misophonia trigger sounds. PLoS One 2020; 15(1): e0227118
  11. Schneider RL, Arch JJ. Case study: a novel application of mindfulnessand acceptance-based components to treat misophonia. J Contextual Behav Sci 2017; 6(2): 221–5
  12. Johnson M. 50 cases of misophonia using the MMP. misophonia conference of the Tinnitus Practitioners Association, Atlanta, GA. 2014
  13. Siepsiak M, Śliwerski A, Łukasz Dragan W. Development and psychometric properties of misoquest-a new self-report questionnaire for Misophonia. Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020; 17(5): 1797
  14. Bauman N. Misophonia Physiological Response Scale (MPRS). Available from: URL: https://misophoniatreatment.com/wp-content/uploads/ 2014/06/MPRS.pdf
  15. Dozier TH. Counter conditioning treatment for misophonia. Clin Case Stud 2015; 14(5): 374–87
  16. Johnson M. Misophonia Assessment Questionaire (MAQ). 2017. Available from: URL: https://misophoniatreatment.com/wp-content/ uploads/2014/06/MAQ-2.pdf
  17. Spitzer RL,