IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jijerp/v13y2016i11p1163-d83580.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

Listed:
  • Mark Brink

    (Federal Office for the Environment, CH-3003 Bern, Switzerland)

  • Dirk Schreckenberg

    (ZEUS GmbH, D-58093 Hagen, Germany)

  • Danielle Vienneau

    (Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland
    University of Basel, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland)

  • Christian Cajochen

    (Centre for Chronobiology, Psychiatric Hospital of the University of Basel, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland)

  • Jean-Marc Wunderli

    (Empa Swiss Federal Laboratories for Materials Science and Technology, CH-8600 Dübendorf, Switzerland)

  • Nicole Probst-Hensch

    (Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland
    University of Basel, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland)

  • Martin Röösli

    (Swiss Tropical and Public Health Institute, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland
    University of Basel, CH-4002 Basel, Switzerland)

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Mark Brink & Dirk Schreckenberg & Danielle Vienneau & Christian Cajochen & Jean-Marc Wunderli & Nicole Probst-Hensch & Martin Röösli, 2016. "Effects of Scale, Question Location, Order of Response Alternatives, and Season on Self-Reported Noise Annoyance Using ICBEN Scales: A Field Experiment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(11), pages 1-19, November.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:13:y:2016:i:11:p:1163-:d:83580
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/13/11/1163/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/13/11/1163/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Anne Taylor & Eleonora Grande & Tiffany Gill, 2006. "Beware the pitfalls of ill-placed questions – revisiting questionnaire ordering," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 51(1), pages 43-44, January.
    2. Thorsten Meyer & Ines Schäfer & Christine Matthis & Thomas Kohlmann & Oskar Mittag, 2006. "Missing data due to a ‘checklist misconception-effect’," International Journal of Public Health, Springer;Swiss School of Public Health (SSPH+), vol. 51(1), pages 34-42, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Chloé Sieber & Martina S. Ragettli & Mark Brink & Olaniyan Toyib & Roslyn Baatjies & Apolline Saucy & Nicole Probst-Hensch & Mohamed Aqiel Dalvie & Martin Röösli, 2017. "Land Use Regression Modeling of Outdoor Noise Exposure in Informal Settlements in Western Cape, South Africa," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 14(10), pages 1-10, October.
    2. Christoph Lechner & David Schnaiter & Stephan Bose-O’Reilly, 2019. "Combined Effects of Aircraft, Rail, and Road Traffic Noise on Total Noise Annoyance—A Cross-Sectional Study in Innsbruck," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-26, September.
    3. Makoto Morinaga & Thu Lan Nguyen & Shigenori Yokoshima & Koji Shimoyama & Takashi Morihara & Takashi Yano, 2021. "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 Numeric," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(12), pages 1-15, June.
    4. Javier Dopico & Beat Schäffer & Mark Brink & Martin Röösli & Danielle Vienneau & Tina Maria Binz & Silvia Tobias & Nicole Bauer & Jean Marc Wunderli, 2023. "How Do Road Traffic Noise and Residential Greenness Correlate with Noise Annoyance and Long-Term Stress? Protocol and Pilot Study for a Large Field Survey with a Cross-Sectional Design," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(4), pages 1-19, February.
    5. Mark Brink & Beat Schäffer & Danielle Vienneau & Reto Pieren & Maria Foraster & Ikenna C. Eze & Franziska Rudzik & Laurie Thiesse & Christian Cajochen & Nicole Probst-Hensch & Martin Röösli & Jean Mar, 2019. "Self-Reported Sleep Disturbance from Road, Rail and Aircraft Noise: Exposure-Response Relationships and Effect Modifiers in the SiRENE Study," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(21), pages 1-21, October.
    6. Barbara Locher & André Piquerez & Manuel Habermacher & Martina Ragettli & Martin Röösli & Mark Brink & Christian Cajochen & Danielle Vienneau & Maria Foraster & Uwe Müller & Jean Marc Wunderli, 2018. "Differences between Outdoor and Indoor Sound Levels for Open, Tilted, and Closed Windows," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(1), pages 1-16, January.
    7. Mark Brink & Lise Giorgis-Allemand & Dirk Schreckenberg & Anne-Sophie Evrard, 2021. "Pooling and Comparing Noise Annoyance Scores and “High Annoyance” (HA) Responses on the 5-Point and 11-Point Scales: Principles and Practical Advice," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(14), pages 1-13, July.
    8. Christoph Lechner & David Schnaiter & Uwe Siebert & Stephan Böse-O’Reilly, 2020. "Effects of Motorcycle Noise on Annoyance—A Cross-Sectional Study in the Alps," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-15, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.

      Corrections

      All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jijerp:v:13:y:2016:i:11:p:1163-:d:83580. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

      If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

      If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

      If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

      For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

      Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

      IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.