Characteristics of Pediatric Performance on a Test Battery Commonly Used in the Diagnosis of Central Auditory Processing Disorder

2015 ◽  
Vol 26 (07) ◽  
pp. 652-669 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jeffrey Weihing ◽  
Linda Guenette ◽  
Gail Chermak ◽  
Mallory Brown ◽  
Julianne Ceruti ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Failure Rate ◽  
Test Performance ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Test Battery ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Similar Data ◽  
Failure Rates ◽  
Central Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Low Pass

Background: Although central auditory processing disorder (CAPD) test battery performance has been examined in adults with neurologic lesions of the central auditory nervous system (CANS), similar data on children being referred for CAPD evaluations are sparse. Purpose: This study characterizes CAPD test battery performance in children using tests commonly administered to diagnose the disorder. Specifically, this study describes failure rates for various test combinations, relationships between CAPD tests used in the battery, and the influence of cognitive function on CAPD test performance and CAPD diagnosis. A comparison is also made between the performance of children with CAPD and data from patients with neurologic lesions of the CANS. Research Design: A retrospective study. Study Sample: Fifty-six pediatric patients were referred for CAPD testing. Data Collection and Analysis: Participants were administered four CAPD tests, including frequency patterns (FP), low-pass filtered speech (LPFS), dichotic digits (DD), and competing sentences (CS). In addition, they were given the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC). Descriptive analyses examined the failure rates of various test combinations, as well as how often children with CAPD failed certain combinations when compared with adults with CANS lesions. A principal components analysis was performed to examine interrelationships between tests. Correlations and regressions were conducted to determine the relationship between CAPD test performance and the WISC. Results: Results showed that the FP and LPFS tests were most commonly failed by children with CAPD. Two-test combinations that included one or both of these two tests and excluded DD tended to be failed more often. Including the DD and CS test in a battery benefited specificity. Tests thought to measure interhemispheric transfer tended to be correlated. Compared with adult patients with neurologic lesions, children with CAPD tended to fail LPFS more frequently and DD less frequently. Both groups failed FP with relatively equal frequency. Conclusions: The two-test combination that showed the highest failure rate for children with CAPD was LPFS-FP. Comparison with adults with CANS lesions, however, suggests that the mechanisms underlying LPFS performance in children need to be better understood. The two-test combination that showed the next highest failure rates among children with CAPD and did not include LPFS was CS-FP. If it is desirable to use a dichotic measure that has a lower linguistic load than CS then DD can be substituted for CS despite the slightly lower failure rate of the DD-FP battery.

The Listening in Spatialized Noise–Sentences Test (LISN-S): Comparison to The Prototype Lisn and Results From Children With Either a Suspected (Central) Auditory Processing Disorder or a Confirmed Language Disorder

2008 ◽  
Vol 19 (05) ◽  
pp. 377-391 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sharon Cameron ◽  
Harvey Dillon
Keyword(s):  
Performance Measures ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Test Battery ◽  
Stream Segregation ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Central Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Auditory Stream ◽  
Auditory Stream Segregation ◽  
Competing Speech

Background: The Listening in Spatialized Noise—Sentences test (LISN-S®) is a revised version of the Listening in Spatialized Noise (Continuous Discourse) test (LISN®; Cameron et al, 2006a). The software produces a three-dimensional auditory environment under headphones and was developed to assess auditory stream segregation skills in children. A simple repetition response protocol is utilized to determine speech reception thresholds (SRTs) for sentences presented from 0° azimuth in competing speech. The competing speech is manipulated with respect to its location in auditory space (0° vs. + and −90° azimuth) and the vocal quality of the speaker(s) (same as, or different to, the speaker of the target stimulus). Performance is measured as two SRT and three advantage measures. The advantage measures represent the benefit in dB gained when either talker, spatial, or both talker and spatial cues combined are incorporated in the maskers. Purpose: To document LISN-S performance in a group of nine children with suspected (central) auditory processing disorder ([C]APD), who presented with difficulties hearing in the classroom in the absence of any routine audiological or language, learning or attention deficits to explain such a difficulty (SusCAPD group). The study also aimed to research the effect of higher-order deficits on LISN-S performance in a group of 11 children with a range of documented learning or attention disorders (LD Group). Correlation between performance on the LISN-S and a traditional (C)APD test battery was also compared. Research Design: In a descriptive design, SusCAPD and LD group performance on the LISN-S was compared to published normative data from 70 age-matched controls. A correlational design was used to compare performance on the various tests in the traditional (C)APD battery to the SRT and advantage measures of the LISN-S. Results: There were no significant differences between the SusCAPD, LD, or control groups on the conditions of the LISN-S where both the target and maskers emanated from 0° azimuth (low-cue SRT, p = 0.978; talker advantage, p = 0.307). However, there were significant differences between groups on the performance measures where the maskers were separated from the target by + and −90°. Post hoc tests revealed that there were no significant differences between the LD group and controls on any of these measures. There were, however, significant differences between the SusCAPD group and the controls on all the conditions where the maskers were spatially separated from the target (high-cue SRT, p = 0.001; spatial advantage, p < 0.0001; total advantage, p < 0.0001). The LISN-S did not correlate significantly with any test in the traditional test battery, nor were the nonspatial and spatial performance measures of the LISN-S correlated. Conclusions: The study supports the hypothesis that a high proportion of children with suspected (C)APD have a deficit in the mechanisms that normally use the spatial distribution of sources to suppress unwanted signals. The LISN-S is a potentially valuable assessment tool for assessing auditory stream segregation deficits, and is sensitive in differentiating various forms of auditory streaming.

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

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
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).

scholarly journals The memory systems of children with (central) auditory disorder

CoDAS ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 27 (4) ◽  
pp. 326-332 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mayra Monteiro Pires ◽  
Mailce Borges Mota ◽  
Maria Madalena Canina Pinheiro
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Phonological Awareness ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Memory Systems ◽  
Procedural Memory ◽  
Test Battery ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Central Auditory Processing Disorder

This study aims to investigate working, declarative, and procedural memory in children with (central) auditory processing disorder who showed poor phonological awareness. Thirty 9- and 10-year-old children participated in the study and were distributed into two groups: a control group consisting of 15 children with typical development, and an experimental group consisting of 15 children with (central) auditory processing disorder who were classified according to three behavioral tests and who showed poor phonological awareness in the CONFIAS test battery. The memory systems were assessed through the adapted tests in the program E-PRIME 2.0. The working memory was assessed by the Working Memory Test Battery for Children (WMTB-C), whereas the declarative memory was assessed by a picture-naming test and the procedural memory was assessed by means of a morphosyntactic processing test. The results showed that, when compared to the control group, children with poor phonological awareness scored lower in the working, declarative, and procedural memory tasks. The results of this study suggest that in children with (central) auditory processing disorder, phonological awareness is associated with the analyzed memory systems.

The Importance of Modality Specificity in Diagnosing Central Auditory Processing Disorder

2005 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony T. Cacace ◽  
Dennis J. McFarland
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Central Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Modality Specificity

Purpose: This article argues for the use of modality specificity as a unifying framework by which to conceptualize and diagnose central auditory processing disorder (CAPD). The intent is to generate dialogue and critical discussion in this area of study. Method: Research in the cognitive, behavioral, and neural sciences that relates to the concept of modality specificity was reviewed and synthesized. Results: Modality specificity has a long history as an organizing construct within a diverse collection of mainstream scientific disciplines. The principle of modality specificity was contrasted with the unimodal inclusive framework, which holds that auditory tests alone are sufficient to make the CAPD diagnosis. Evidence from a large body of data demonstrated that the unimodal framework was unable to delineate modality-specific processes from more generalized dysfunction; it lacked discriminant validity and resulted in an incomplete assessment. Consequently, any hypothetical model resulting from incomplete assessments or potential therapies that are based on indeterminate diagnoses are themselves questionable, and caution should be used in their application. Conclusions: Improving specificity of diagnosis is an imperative core issue to the area of CAPD. Without specificity, the concept has little explanatory power. Because of serious flaws in concept and design, the unimodal inclusive framework should be abandoned in favor of a more valid approach that uses modality specificity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document