PONE-D-24-56831Misophonia Impact Questionnaire (MIQ), Tinnitus Impact Questionnaire (TIQ), and Hyperacusis Impact Questionnaire (HIQ): Factor Analysis, Test-Retest Reliability, and Minimum Detectable Change Using a Non-Clinical PopulationPLOS ONE

Dear Dr. Kula,

Thank you for submitting your manuscript to PLOS ONE. After careful consideration, we feel that it has merit but does not fully meet PLOS ONE’s publication criteria as it currently stands. Therefore, we invite you to submit a revised version of the manuscript that addresses the points raised during the review process.

Please submit your revised manuscript by Mar 24 2025 11:59PM. If you will need more time than this to complete your revisions, please reply to this message or contact the journal office at plosone@plos.org . When you're ready to submit your revision, log on to https://www.editorialmanager.com/pone/ and select the 'Submissions Needing Revision' folder to locate your manuscript file.

Please include the following items when submitting your revised manuscript:

• A rebuttal letter that responds to each point raised by the academic editor and reviewer(s). You should upload this letter as a separate file labeled 'Response to Reviewers'.
• A marked-up copy of your manuscript that highlights changes made to the original version. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Revised Manuscript with Track Changes'.
• An unmarked version of your revised paper without tracked changes. You should upload this as a separate file labeled 'Manuscript'.

If you would like to make changes to your financial disclosure, please include your updated statement in your cover letter. Guidelines for resubmitting your figure files are available below the reviewer comments at the end of this letter.

If applicable, we recommend that you deposit your laboratory protocols in protocols.io to enhance the reproducibility of your results. Protocols.io assigns your protocol its own identifier (DOI) so that it can be cited independently in the future. For instructions see: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/submission-guidelines#loc-laboratory-protocols . Additionally, PLOS ONE offers an option for publishing peer-reviewed Lab Protocol articles, which describe protocols hosted on protocols.io. Read more information on sharing protocols at https://plos.org/protocols?utm_medium=editorial-email&utm_source=authorletters&utm_campaign=protocols .

We look forward to receiving your revised manuscript.

Kind regards,

Prashanth Prabhu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Journal Requirements:

1. When submitting your revision, we need you to address these additional requirements.

Please ensure that your manuscript meets PLOS ONE's style requirements, including those for file naming. The PLOS ONE style templates can be found at

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=wjVg/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_main_body.pdf and

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/file?id=ba62/PLOSOne_formatting_sample_title_authors_affiliations.pdf

2. Thank you for stating the following in the Acknowledgments Section of your manuscript: [HA was supported by an R&D fund from Hashir International Specialist Clinics & Research Institute for Misophonia, Tinnitus and Hyperacusis Ltd. This project was based on the data collected for FBK’s PhD research at University of Surrey, funded by the Ministry of National Education of the Republic of Turkey.]

We note that you have provided funding information that is not currently declared in your Funding Statement. However, funding information should not appear in the Acknowledgments section or other areas of your manuscript. We will only publish funding information present in the Funding Statement section of the online submission form.

Please remove any funding-related text from the manuscript and let us know how you would like to update your Funding Statement. Currently, your Funding Statement reads as follows: “The authors received no specific funding for this work.”

Please include your amended statements within your cover letter; we will change the online submission form on your behalf.

3. We note that you have indicated that there are restrictions to data sharing for this study. For studies involving human research participant data or other sensitive data, we encourage authors to share de-identified or anonymized data. However, when data cannot be publicly shared for ethical reasons, we allow authors to make their data sets available upon request. For information on unacceptable data access restrictions, please see http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/data-availability#loc-unacceptable-data-access-restrictions .

Before we proceed with your manuscript, please address the following prompts:

a) If there are ethical or legal restrictions on sharing a de-identified data set, please explain them in detail (e.g., data contain potentially identifying or sensitive patient information, data are owned by a third-party organization, etc.) and who has imposed them (e.g., a Research Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board, etc.). Please also provide contact information for a data access committee, ethics committee, or other institutional body to which data requests may be sent.

b) If there are no restrictions, please upload the minimal anonymized data set necessary to replicate your study findings to a stable, public repository and provide us with the relevant URLs, DOIs, or accession numbers. Please see http://www.bmj.com/content/340/bmj.c181.long for guidelines on how to de-identify and prepare clinical data for publication. For a list of recommended repositories, please see https://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/recommended-repositories . You also have the option of uploading the data as Supporting Information files, but we would recommend depositing data directly to a data repository if possible.

Please update your Data Availability statement in the submission form accordingly.

4. Please include captions for your Supporting Information files at the end of your manuscript, and update any in-text citations to match accordingly. Please see our Supporting Information guidelines for more information: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/supporting-information .

[Note: HTML markup is below. Please do not edit.]

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

2. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: Thank you for this comprehensive paper on the questionnaires used to evaluate the impact of Tinnitus, Misophonia, and Hyperacusis.

Minimal revision is advised.

1. Line 204, Page 8 :There is a typo: "completed for bother surveys were...". I assume the authors meant "both."

2. Could the authors please clarify the process of participant recruitment? From my understanding, 451 participants completed the two questionnaires, the MIQ and HIQ, and 173 of them completed the TIQ. Furthermore, 130 participants who repeated the questionnaire also completed both MIQ and HIQ, while 32 of the 173 participants completed the TIQ.

3. Did the 451 participants report symptoms of misophonia or hyperacusis to be included in the study? In other words, what were the requirements for participant inclusion?

Reviewer #2: PONE-D-24-56831: Misophonia Impact Questionnaire (MIQ), Tinnitus Impact Questionnaires (TIQ), and Hyperacusis Impact Questionnaire (HIQ): Factor analysis, Test-retest reliability, and minimum detectable change using a non-clinical population

This manuscript is a sequel of the author’s previous work on the development and validation of the three questionnaires. The authors assessed the factor analysis, test-retest reliability, and also identified the minimum detectable change for the 3 questionnaires when completed on a non-clinical population. This topic is relevant for the journal and will provide relevant information to better assess individuals with tinnitus or other loudness issues, especially to identify the impacts of those conditions in the patient’s life. However, this manuscript, in its current format, needs some restructuring, clarity, and cohesiveness for ease of understanding and replicability. I suggest the authors consider revising the manuscript if they wish to re-submit it. See below my comments.

Abstract:

It was later mentioned in the manuscript that a sub-set of the total sample completed the surveys twice to assess the test-retest reliability. It is not currently clear based on how it is written in lines 21-22. Consider editing the sentence to clarify this information

Introduction:

The introduction section has a lot of great, relevant information. However, the way it is currently structured assumes that the readers are already aware of the authors’ previous work. I suggest the authors provide a better orientation to this study and rearrange the section for better cohesiveness and ease of understanding.

For example:

The current paragraph 2 (lines 51-77) can be the first paragraph as it introduces the conditions and provides more information about them.

Lines 78 to 86: This can be paragraph 2 as it flows better after the introductory information. Additionally, consider beginning this paragraph with an introductory sentence to the paragraph so it flows better.

Lines 37-50: Once you discussed about interventions and their aims and the importance of assessment. This current first paragraph fits better as it talks about the questionnaires how they are in their existing original format. You can consider ending this paragraph with the sentence in line 86 (The MIQ….purpose.).

Lines 87 onwards: This can be the 4th paragraph of the introduction section as this then talks about the need to test the questionnaires in a non-clinical population. I would also suggest providing a straightforward description of the meaning of non-clinical population as you introduce this term in this paragraph. This will allow the readers to avoid any confusion in interpreting who you are referring to as this population.

Lin2 108: The sentence “Currently..” started talking about the 3rd aim. I wasn’t sure about that until read the last sentence of the paragraph. I suggest, editing this sentence slightly to indicate that you have started talking about the 3rd aim.

Methods:

Line 132-133: The authors have mentioned about the subset of population who completed the survey twice. Were these individuals selected and invited for the re-test survey or was the re-test survey was available to the 451 individuals and these 130 individuals voluntarily completed the survey twice. Consider clarifying this information.

Line 134: Add the % for the 137 individuals

Line 136: The authors have included a wide age range. Consider providing a rationale for this choice. Were there any age-related differences in the results?

Consider providing more details on all the items in the survey, other than the 3 questionnaires. For example, did they provide their demographic details?

Lines 142-145: This is a really long sentence. Consider chunking it into two sentences for ease of understanding.

Line 204-205: Only 32 participants’ data was included. Do the authors have information on the power of the study with this limited sample?

Results:

Lines 215-224: To improve ease of reading for the readers, consider following the same order for the statistics and results as they are presented in the table.

Discussion:

Consider discussing more on the clinical implication of your results in individuals with these conditions.

Conclusion:

Consider providing a stronger conclusion beyond a summary of the results.

**********

6. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Lipika Sarangi

**********

[NOTE: If reviewer comments were submitted as an attachment file, they will be attached to this email and accessible via the submission site. Please log into your account, locate the manuscript record, and check for the action link "View Attachments". If this link does not appear, there are no attachment files.]

While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ . PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Registration is free. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email PLOS at figures@plos.org . Please note that Supporting Information files do not need this step.

Misophonia Impact Questionnaire (MIQ), Tinnitus Impact Questionnaire (TIQ), and Hyperacusis Impact Questionnaire (HIQ): Factor Analysis, Test-Retest Reliability, and Minimum Detectable Change Using a Non-Clinical Population

PONE-D-24-56831R1

Dear Dr. Kula,

We’re pleased to inform you that your manuscript has been judged scientifically suitable for publication and will be formally accepted for publication once it meets all outstanding technical requirements.

Within one week, you’ll receive an e-mail detailing the required amendments. When these have been addressed, you’ll receive a formal acceptance letter and your manuscript will be scheduled for publication.

An invoice will be generated when your article is formally accepted. Please note, if your institution has a publishing partnership with PLOS and your article meets the relevant criteria, all or part of your publication costs will be covered. Please make sure your user information is up-to-date by logging into Editorial Manager at Editorial Manager®  and clicking the ‘Update My Information' link at the top of the page. If you have any questions relating to publication charges, please contact our Author Billing department directly at authorbilling@plos.org.

If your institution or institutions have a press office, please notify them about your upcoming paper to help maximize its impact. If they’ll be preparing press materials, please inform our press team as soon as possible -- no later than 48 hours after receiving the formal acceptance. Your manuscript will remain under strict press embargo until 2 pm Eastern Time on the date of publication. For more information, please contact onepress@plos.org.

Kind regards,

Prashanth Prabhu

Academic Editor

PLOS ONE

Additional Editor Comments (optional):

Reviewers' comments:

Reviewer's Responses to Questions

Comments to the Author

1. If the authors have adequately addressed your comments raised in a previous round of review and you feel that this manuscript is now acceptable for publication, you may indicate that here to bypass the “Comments to the Author” section, enter your conflict of interest statement in the “Confidential to Editor” section, and submit your "Accept" recommendation.

Reviewer #1: All comments have been addressed

Reviewer #2: All comments have been addressed

**********

2. Is the manuscript technically sound, and do the data support the conclusions?

The manuscript must describe a technically sound piece of scientific research with data that supports the conclusions. Experiments must have been conducted rigorously, with appropriate controls, replication, and sample sizes. The conclusions must be drawn appropriately based on the data presented.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

3. Has the statistical analysis been performed appropriately and rigorously?

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

4. Have the authors made all data underlying the findings in their manuscript fully available?

The PLOS Data policy requires authors to make all data underlying the findings described in their manuscript fully available without restriction, with rare exception (please refer to the Data Availability Statement in the manuscript PDF file). The data should be provided as part of the manuscript or its supporting information, or deposited to a public repository. For example, in addition to summary statistics, the data points behind means, medians and variance measures should be available. If there are restrictions on publicly sharing data—e.g. participant privacy or use of data from a third party—those must be specified.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

5. Is the manuscript presented in an intelligible fashion and written in standard English?

PLOS ONE does not copyedit accepted manuscripts, so the language in submitted articles must be clear, correct, and unambiguous. Any typographical or grammatical errors should be corrected at revision, so please note any specific errors here.

Reviewer #1: Yes

Reviewer #2: Yes

**********

6. Review Comments to the Author

Please use the space provided to explain your answers to the questions above. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. (Please upload your review as an attachment if it exceeds 20,000 characters)

Reviewer #1: The manuscript provides valuable information on the impact of tinnitus, hyperacusis, and misophonia in a non-clinical population. All reviewer comments have been adequately addressed by the authors.

Reviewer #2: The authors have carefully addressed all the reviewer's comments. I recommend acceptance of the manuscript.

**********

7. PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article (what does this mean? ). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.

If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.

Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy .

Reviewer #1: No

Reviewer #2: Yes:  Lipika Sarangi

**********