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

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (14) ◽  
pp. 7339
Author(s):  
Mark Brink ◽  
Lise Giorgis-Allemand ◽  
Dirk Schreckenberg ◽  
Anne-Sophie Evrard
Keyword(s):  
Random Assignment ◽  
Practical Advice ◽  
R Language ◽  
Response Data ◽  
Original Response ◽  
Noise Annoyance ◽  
Acoustic Surveys ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Original Scale ◽  
Assignment Approach

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.

scholarly journals The Effect of an Alternative Definition of “Percent Highly Annoyed” on the Exposure–Response Relationship: Comparison of Noise Annoyance Responses Measured by ICBEN 5-Point Verbal and 11-Point Numerical Scales

2021 ◽  
Vol 18 (12) ◽  
pp. 6258
Author(s):  
Makoto Morinaga ◽  
Thu Lan Nguyen ◽  
Shigenori Yokoshima ◽  
Koji Shimoyama ◽  
Takashi Morihara ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Sound Pressure ◽  
Response Relationship ◽  
Alternative Definition ◽  
Exposure Response ◽  
Noise Annoyance ◽  
Numerical Scale ◽  
Verbal Scale ◽  
Sound Pressure Levels ◽  
Acoustic Surveys ◽  
Definition Of

Since the development of the 5-point verbal and 11-point numerical scales for measuring noise annoyance by the ICBEN Team 6, these scales have been widely used in socio-acoustic surveys worldwide, and annoyance responses have been easily compared internationally. However, both the top two categories of the 5–point verbal scale and the top three ones of the 11-point numerical scale are correspond to high annoyance, so it is difficult to precisely compare annoyance responses. Therefore, we calculated differences in day–evening–night-weighted sound pressure levels (Lden) by comparing values corresponding to 10% highly annoyed (HA) on Lden_%HA curves obtained from measurements in 40 datasets regarding surveys conducted in Japan and Vietnam. The results showed that the Lden value corresponding to 10% HA using the 5-point verbal scale was approximately 5 dB lower than that of the 11-point numerical scale. Thus, some correction is required to compare annoyance responses measured by the 5-point verbal and the 11-point numerical scales. The results of this study were also compared with those of a survey in Switzerland.

scholarly journals Interconnectedness and Contagion Analysis

2019 ◽  
Vol 19 (220) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jana Bricco ◽  
TengTeng Xu
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Financial Stability ◽  
Financial System ◽  
Comprehensive Analysis ◽  
Policy Recommendations ◽  
Practical Advice ◽  
Assessment Program ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Depth Analysis ◽  
Practical Guidance

The analysis of interconnectedness and contagion is an important part of the financial stability and risk assessment of a country’s financial system. This paper offers detailed and practical guidance on how to conduct a comprehensive analysis of interconnectedness and contagion for a country’s financial system under various circumstances. We survey current approaches at the IMF for analyzing interconnectedness within the interbank, cross-sector and cross-border dimensions through an overview and examples of the data and methodologies used in the Financial Sector Assessment Program. Finally, this paper offers practical advice on how to interpret results and discusses potential financial stability policy recommendations that can be drawn from this type of in-depth analysis.

Disinfection and sterilization

2019 ◽  
pp. 95-142
Author(s):  
Nizam Damani
Keyword(s):  
Risk Assessment ◽  
Antimicrobial Activity ◽  
Healthcare Facility ◽  
Healthcare Facilities ◽  
Practical Advice ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Practical Guidance ◽  
Chemical Disinfection

The chapter on decontamination examines various methods of heat sterilization and chemical disinfection. It outlines how to carry out a risk assessment of contaminated items and equipment based on the Spaulding classification and provides practical guidance on how to decontaminate various items in healthcare facilities. It also discusses how to transport items, clean, disinfect, and sterilize various items and equipment in healthcare facility. It outlines various heat sterilization procedures and gives practical advice on how to maintain various types of sterilizer or autoclave and how to safely store sterile items. Detail is also provided on how to use chemical disinfectants in healthcare facilities and summarizes the use and antimicrobial activity of various disinfectants and antiseptics. This chapter also includes advice on decontamination of endoscopes and maintenance of automatic endoscope reprocessors. It also provides practical advice and summarizes the key points on how to investigate and follow up cases after a failure of decontamination process.

scholarly journals Judging Expert Testimony: From Verbal Formalism to Practical Advice

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Haack
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Expert Testimony ◽  
Expert Evidence ◽  
Practical Advice ◽  
Legal Context ◽  
Practical Guidance

<span lang="EN-US">Appraising the worth of others’ testimony is always complex; appraising the worth of expert testimony is even harder; appraising the worth of expert testimony in a legal context is harder yet. Legal efforts to assess the reliability of expert testimony—I’ll focus on evolving U.S. law governing the admissibility of such testimony—seem far from adequate, offering little effective practical guidance. My purpose in this paper is to think through what might be done to offer courts more real, operational help. The first step is to explain why the legal formulae that have evolved over the years may seem reassuring, but aren’t really of much practical use. The next is to suggest that we might do better not by amending evidentiary rules but by helping judges and attorneys understand what questions they should ask about expert evidence. I focus here on (i) epidemiological testimony, and (ii) the process of peer review.</span>

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document