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.

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.

The Development of a Multiple-Item Annoyance Scale (MIAS) for Transportation Noise Annoyance.

In 2001, Team#6 of the International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise (ICBEN) recommended the use of two single international standardised questions and response scales. This recommendation has been widely accepted in the scientific community. Nevertheless, annoyance can be regarded as a multidimensional construct comprising the three elements: (1) experience of an often repeated noise-related disturbance and the behavioural response to cope with it, (2) an emotional/attitudinal response to the sound and its disturbing impact, and (3) the perceived control or coping capacity with regard to the noise situation. The psychometric properties of items reflecting these three elements have been explored for aircraft noise annoyance. Analyses were conducted using data of the NORAH-Study (Noise-Related Annoyance, Cognition, and Health), and a multi-item noise annoyance scale (MIAS) has been developed and tested post hoc by using a stepwise process (exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses). Preliminary results were presented to the 12th ICBEN Congress in 2017. In this study, the validation of MIAS is done for aircraft noise and extended to railway and road traffic noise. The results largely confirm the concept of MIAS as a second-order construct of annoyance for all of the investigated transportation noise sources; however, improvements can be made, in particular with regard to items addressing the perceived coping capacity.

Effects of Scale, Question Location, Order of Response Alternatives, and Season on Self-Reported Noise Annoyance Using ICBEN Scales: A Field Experiment.

The type of noise annoyance scale and aspects of its presentation such as response format or location within a questionnaire and other contextual factors may affect self-reported noise annoyance. By means of a balanced experimental design, the effect of type of annoyance question and corresponding scale (5-point verbal vs. 11-point numerical ICBEN (International Commission on Biological Effects of Noise) scale), presentation order of scale points (ascending vs. descending), question location (early vs. late within the questionnaire), and survey season (autumn vs. spring) on reported road traffic noise annoyance was investigated in a postal survey with a stratified random sample of 2386 Swiss residents. Our results showed that early appearance of annoyance questions was significantly associated with higher annoyance scores. Questionnaires filled out in autumn were associated with a significantly higher annoyance rating than in the springtime. No effect was found for the order of response alternatives. Standardized average annoyance scores were slightly higher using the 11-point numerical scale whereas the percentage of highly annoyed respondents was higher based on the 5-point scale, using common cutoff points. In conclusion, placement and presentation of annoyance questions within a questionnaire, as well as the time of the year a survey is carried out, have small but demonstrable effects on the degree of self-reported noise annoyance.

Environmental Noise Annoyance and Mental Health in Adults: Findings from the Cross-Sectional German Health Update (GEDA) Study 2012.

The health implications of environmental noise, especially cardiovascular effects, have been studied intensively. Research on associations between noise and mental health, however, has shown contradictory results. The present study examined associations between individual levels of noise annoyance due to noise from various sources in the living environment and mental health of adults in Germany. It evaluated whether these associations persisted after adjusting for potential covariates. Data were obtained from the cross-sectional "German Health Update" study 2012 (GEDA 2012), a national health interview survey among adults in Germany conducted by the Robert Koch Institute (n = 19,294). Noise annoyance questions referred to overall noise and that from road traffic, neighbours, and air traffic. Mental health was measured with the five-item Mental Health Inventory. Bivariate analysis showed associations between high levels of noise annoyance and impaired mental health for all noise sources except air traffic. After adjusting for covariates (sociodemographic factors, chronic disease, and social support), both men and women who reported high overall noise annoyance showed more than doubled odds of impaired mental health compared to those who were not annoyed. The odds of impaired mental health in the highest noise annoyance category from road traffic and neighbours were also significantly increased. These findings indicate that high noise annoyance is associated with impaired mental health and that this association can vary with the source of environmental noise. Further research on covariates of this association is necessary. Particularly, longitudinal data are required to establish the direction of associations and to address questions of causality.