Factor Analysis on Multiple Auditory Processing Assessment–2 and Listening in Spatialized Noise–Sentences Test in Children

Introduction There is need for greater understanding of tests used in assessing all aspects of auditory processing disorder (APD). This is important so that specific deficits can be identified and later remediated with the smallest possible test battery. The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) recommends five areas/domains for behavioral assessment: (a) temporal, (b) binaural (dichotic) separation/integration, (c) monaural low redundancy, (d) binaural interaction/localization/lateralization, and (e) auditory discrimination. Multiple-factor studies support the first three domains, which are most often used for APD assessment and which can be measured in a test battery normed within the United States (Multiple Auditory Processing Assessment–2 [MAPA-2]). This study was designed to determine if factored results from children would clarify whether a behavioral test (Listening in Spatialized Noise–Sentences Test [LiSN-S]) would factor within one of the first three domains or be separate, possibly within the fourth domain, binaural interaction. Method Fifty-one 8- and 9-year-olds with normal development and normal otoscopy and hearing responses bilaterally from 500 to 4000 Hz at 20 dB HL were recruited. Two sets of APD tests were administered: MAPA-2 and LiSN-S. Results Results verified the expected three-factor structure for MAPA-2. LiSN-S did not factor within one of those three, suggesting that some processes involved in the LiSN-S tasks require interactions between the two ears different from those involved in dichotic perception and thus better belong in the ASHA binaural interaction/lateralization domain. Conclusions Auditory processing abilities are sufficiently independent of each other that test batteries spanning the first three ASHA domains are not sensitive to at least some abilities in the fourth domain. This additional factor evidence is helpful. Future research should examine the utility of measuring additional factors within APD in order to achieve the most efficient and comprehensive test battery.

Download Full-text

Impact of different cutoff criteria on rate of (central) auditory processing disorders diagnosis using the central test battery

Audiology Research ◽

10.4081/audiores.2016.158 ◽

2016 ◽

Vol 6 (2) ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Mohsin Ahmed Shaikh ◽

Lisa Fox-Thomas ◽

Denise Tucker

Keyword(s):

Auditory Processing ◽

The United States ◽

Test Battery ◽

Auditory Processing Disorder ◽

Central Auditory Processing ◽

Central Auditory Processing Disorder ◽

Central Auditory Processing Disorders ◽

The Mean ◽

Test Failure ◽

Cutoff Criteria

The purpose of this study was to quantify how the use of two different cutoff criteria affects the test failure rate and potential diagnosis of central auditory processing disorder ([C]APD) in a sample of children subjected to central auditory processing ([C]AP) assessment. Test failure rates for the central test battery (CTB) using two different cutoff criteria (1 and 2 SDs below the mean) were measured retrospectively for 98 children who completed (C)AP assessment. The rates of potential (C)APD diagnosis ranged from 86.8% [when a 1 standard deviation (SD) cutoff was used] to 66.2% (when a 2 SD cutoff was used). The current use of two different cutoffs for the CTB has a large impact on the diagnostic rate for (C)APD. These findings have clinical implications for the diagnosis of (C)APD due to the widespread use of the CTB in the United States for the assessment of (C)APD in children. Thus, it is important to create awareness among audiologists that use of the 2 SDs cutoff criterion is recommended for reducing false positives (error).

Download Full-text

Working Memory and Auditory Processing in School-Age Children

Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools ◽

10.1044/2018_lshss-17-0099 ◽

2018 ◽

Vol 49 (3) ◽

pp. 409-423 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Beula M. Magimairaj ◽

Naveen K. Nagaraj

Keyword(s):

Working Memory ◽

Test Performance ◽

Auditory Processing ◽

Auditory Processing Disorder ◽

School Age Children ◽

Future Research ◽

Clinical Implications ◽

School Age ◽

Processing Abilities ◽

New Framework

Purpose Our goal is to present the relationships between working memory (WM) and auditory processing abilities in school-age children. Review and Discussion We begin with an overview of auditory processing, the conceptualization of auditory processing disorder, and the assessment of auditory processing abilities in children. Next, we describe a model of WM and a model of auditory processing followed by their comparison. Evidence for the relationships between WM and auditory processing abilities in school-age children follows. Specifically, we present evidence for the association (or lack thereof) between WM/attention and auditory processing test performance. Clinical Implications In conclusion, we describe a new framework for understanding auditory processing abilities in children based on integrated evidence from cognitive science, hearing science, and language science. We also discuss clinical implications in children that could inform future research.

Download Full-text

An Opinion on the Assessment of People Who May Have an Auditory Processing Disorder

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology ◽

10.3766/jaaa.23.2.4 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 23 (02) ◽

pp. 097-105 ◽

Cited By ~ 47

Author(s):

Harvey Dillon ◽

Sharon Cameron ◽

Helen Glyde ◽

Wayne Wilson ◽

Dani Tomlin

Keyword(s):

At Risk ◽

Auditory Processing ◽

Specific Form ◽

Test Battery ◽

Auditory Processing Disorder ◽

Test Results ◽

Hierarchical Approach ◽

Clinical Efficiency ◽

Impaired Ability ◽

The Individual

We need to rethink how we assess auditory processing disorder (APD). The current use of test batteries, while necessary and well accepted, is at risk of failing as the size of these batteries increases. To counter the statistical, fatigue, and clinical efficiency problems of large test batteries, we propose a hierarchical approach to APD assessment. This begins with an overall test of listening difficulty in which performance is measurably affected for anyone with an impaired ability to understand speech in difficult listening conditions. It proceeds with a master test battery containing a small number of single tests, each of which assesses a different group of skills necessary for understanding speech in difficult listening conditions. It ends with a detailed test battery, where the individual tests administered from this battery are only those that differentiate the skills assessed by the failed test(s) from the master test battery, so that the specific form of APD can be diagnosed. An example of how hierarchical interpretation of test results could be performed is illustrated using the Listening in Spatialized Noise—Sentences test (LiSN-S). Although consideration of what abilities fall within the realm of auditory processing should remain an important issue for research, we argue that patients will be best served by focusing on whether they have difficulty understanding speech, identifying the specific characteristics of this difficulty, and specifically remediating and/or managing those characteristics.

Download Full-text

An Objective Approach Toward Understanding Auditory Processing Disorder

American Journal of Audiology ◽

10.1044/2021_aja-21-00007 ◽

2021 ◽

pp. 1-6

Author(s):

Akshay R. Maggu ◽

Tobias Overath

Keyword(s):

Clinical Practice ◽

Auditory Processing ◽

Test Battery ◽

Domain Specificity ◽

Auditory Processing Disorder ◽

Theoretical Construct ◽

Ongoing Debate ◽

Current Definition ◽

Definition Of ◽

Shed Light

Purpose In the field of audiology, auditory processing disorder (APD) continues to be a topic of ongoing debate for clinicians and scientists alike, both in terms of theory and clinical practice. In the current viewpoint, we first lay out the main issues that are central to the controversy surrounding APD, and then suggest a framework toward their resolution. Method The current viewpoint is informed by reviewing existing studies in the field of APD to better understand the issues contributing to the controversies in APD. Results We found that, within the current definition of APD, the two main issues that make the APD diagnosis controversial are (a) comorbidity with other disorders and (b) the lack of domain specificity. These issues remain unresolved, especially with the use of the existing behavioral APD test batteries. In this viewpoint, we shed light on how they can be mitigated by implementing the administration of an objective, physiological test battery. Conclusions By administering an objective test battery, as proposed in this viewpoint, we believe that it will be possible to achieve a higher degree of specificity to the auditory domain that will not only contribute towards clinical practice but also contribute towards strengthening APD as a theoretical construct.

Download Full-text

Psychosocial Status of Children with Auditory Processing Disorder

Journal of the American Academy of Audiology ◽

10.3766/jaaa.23.3.8 ◽

2012 ◽

Vol 23 (03) ◽

pp. 222-233 ◽

Cited By ~ 14

Author(s):

Nicole V. Kreisman ◽

Andrew B. John ◽

Brian M. Kreisman ◽

James W. Hall ◽

Carl C. Crandell

Keyword(s):

Auditory Processing ◽

Language Disorder ◽

Behavioral Assessment ◽

Psychosocial Health ◽

Analysis Data ◽

Assessment System ◽

Auditory Processing Disorder ◽

Psychosocial Status ◽

Social Skills Rating System ◽

Children With Hearing Loss

Background: Children with hearing loss often exhibit reduced psychosocial status compared to children with normal hearing. It is reasonable to assume that psychosocial function may also be affected in children diagnosed with auditory processing disorder (APD). However, there are no published studies specifically addressing the psychosocial health of children with APD. Purpose: This investigation examined relationships between APD and psychosocial status, with an aim to examine nonauditory factors that may influence quality of life of children diagnosed with APD. Research Design: A two-matched group design was employed. Participants and their mothers completed appropriate versions of the Dartmouth Primary Care Cooperative Information Project Charts for Adolescents (COOP-A), the Behavioral Assessment System for Children, Second Edition (BASC-2), and the Social Skills Rating System (SSRS). Study Sample: Participants consisted of 19 children (aged 9.5–17.8 yr; mean = 11.9) diagnosed with APD and 20 gender- and age-matched (mean = 12.8 yr) children with no evidence of APD by history or audiological assessment. Primary caretakers (mothers) of the participants also completed psychosocial questionnaires according to their perception of their participating child's function. Data Collection and Analysis: Data were collected at a single visit, following APD diagnosis. Data from each questionnaire were analyzed using appropriate statistical methods for two-group comparisons. Results: Analysis of child reports revealed significantly greater psychosocial difficulty in the APD group on subscales of the COOP-A and BASC-2. Increased problems in the APD group were also reported by parents on subscales of the COOP-A, BASC-2, and SSRS. Eta-squared values for all significant findings indicated moderate to large effect sizes, suggesting findings may be generalized to other children in this age group. No between-group differences were found on any subscale for APD children with or without a confirmed or suspected language disorder. Conclusion: We found that children with APD exhibit increased psychosocial difficulty in several areas compared to children without APD.

Download Full-text

Implementation and evaluation of a Danish test battery for auditory processing disorder in children

International Journal of Audiology ◽

10.1080/14992027.2017.1309467 ◽

2017 ◽

Vol 56 (8) ◽

pp. 538-549 ◽

Cited By ~ 6

Author(s):

Ellen Raben Pedersen ◽

Berit Dahl-Hansen ◽

Jakob Christensen-Dalsgaard ◽

Christian Brandt

Keyword(s):

Auditory Processing ◽

Test Battery ◽

Auditory Processing Disorder

Download Full-text

Behavioral assessment of children at the risk of central auditory processing disorder without reading deficits

Journal of Hearing Science ◽

10.17430/889660 ◽

2013 ◽

Vol 3 (4) ◽

pp. 49-55

Keyword(s):

Auditory Processing ◽

Behavioral Assessment ◽

Auditory Processing Disorder ◽

Central Auditory Processing ◽

Central Auditory Processing Disorder ◽

Reading Deficits

Download Full-text

Electrophysiological Screening for Children With Suspected Auditory Processing Disorder: A Systematic Review

Frontiers in Neurology ◽

10.3389/fneur.2021.692840 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 12 ◽

Author(s):

Panting Liu ◽

Huiqin Zhu ◽

Mingxia Chen ◽

Qin Hong ◽

Xia Chi

Keyword(s):

Auditory Processing ◽

Data Extraction ◽

Auditory Brainstem ◽

Healthcare Research ◽

Auditory Evoked Potential ◽

Auditory Processing Disorder ◽

Auditory Brainstem Responses ◽

Cross Sectional ◽

Binaural Interaction ◽

Electrophysiological Testing

Objective: This research aimed to provide evidence for the early identification and intervention of children at risk for auditory processing disorder (APD). Electrophysiological studies on children with suspected APDs were systematically reviewed to understand the different electrophysiological characteristics of children with suspected APDs.Methods: Computerized databases such as PubMed, Cochrane, MEDLINE, Web of Science, and EMBASE were searched for retrieval of articles since the establishment of the database through May 18, 2020. Cohort, case-control, and cross-sectional studies that evaluated the literature for the electrophysiological assessment of children with suspected APD were independently reviewed by two researchers for literature screening, literature quality assessment, and data extraction. The Newcastle–Ottawa Scale and 11 entries recommended by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality were used to evaluate the quality of the literature.Results: In accordance with the inclusion criteria, 14 articles were included. These articles involved 7 electrophysiological testing techniques: click-evoked auditory brainstem responses, frequency-following responses, the binaural interaction component of the auditory brainstem responses, the middle-latency response, cortical auditory evoked potential, mismatch negativity, and P300. The literature quality was considered moderate.Conclusions: Auditory electrophysiological testing can be used for the characteristic identification of children with suspected APD; however, the value of various electrophysiological testing methods for screening children with suspected APD requires further study.

Download Full-text