Psychosocial Status of Children with Auditory Processing Disorder

2012 ◽  
Vol 23 (03) ◽  
pp. 222-233 ◽  
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.

Auditory Temporal Gap Detection in Children with and without Auditory Processing Disorder

2010 ◽  
Vol 21 (06) ◽  
pp. 404-408 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dennis P. Phillips ◽  
Michel Comeau ◽  
Jessica N. Andrus
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Silent Period ◽  
Analysis Data ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Gap Detection ◽  
Temporal Acuity ◽  
Normal Children ◽  
Modified Method ◽  
Simple Event ◽  
Data Collection And Analysis

Background: Auditory gap detection is a measure of temporal acuity. The paradigm comes in two forms, distinguished by whether the sounds bounding the silent period are the same (within channel [WC]) or different (between channel [BC]). Purpose: The purpose of this study was to test normal children and children referred for auditory processing disorder (APD) assessment, with both gap detection paradigms. Research Design: Best gap durations (i.e., shortest reliably detected gaps) were measured in a two-interval, two-alternative forced-choice design embedded within a modified method of limits, for both WC and BC paradigms, with stimuli presented at 55 dB HL. Study Sample: Sixteen control children and 20 children referred for APD assessment participated in the study. Of the 20 referred children, 9 were diagnostically positive for APD (APD+), and 11 were negative (APD−). The mean age of children in all three groups was 10–11 yr. Data Collection and Analysis: Data collected were best gap durations for each paradigm, for each child. Group differences were assessed using Kruskal-Wallis analyses of variance. Results: WC best gap durations were very similar across the three participant groups. BC best gap durations varied significantly between listener groups, with the greatest difference being between controls and APD+ samples. Conclusions: BC best gap durations differed among the listener groups while WC ones did not. This suggests that the relative timing perceptual operations required by the BC task are more susceptible to the perceptual disturbances in APD than is the simple event detection required by the WC task.

scholarly journals Who is Right? A Word-Identification-in-Noise Test for Young Children Using Minimal Pair Distracters

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Samuel Evans ◽  
Stuart Rosen
Keyword(s):  
Speech Perception ◽  
Young Children ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Word Identification ◽  
Minimal Pair ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Children And Young Adults

Purpose: Many children have difficulties understanding speech. At present, there are few assessments that test for subtle impairments in speech perception with normative data from U.K. children. We present a new test that evaluates children's ability to identify target words in background noise by choosing between minimal pair alternatives that differ by a single articulatory phonetic feature. This task (a) is tailored to testing young children, but also readily applicable to adults; (b) has minimal memory demands; (c) adapts to the child's ability; and (d) does not require reading or verbal output. Method: We tested 155 children and young adults aged from 5 to 25 years on this new test of single word perception. Results: Speech-in-noise abilities in this particular task develop rapidly through childhood until they reach maturity at around 9 years of age. Conclusions: We make this test freely available and provide associated normative data. We hope that it will be useful to researchers and clinicians in the assessment of speech perception abilities in children who are hard of hearing or have developmental language disorder, dyslexia, or auditory processing disorder. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.17155934

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

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-10
Author(s):  
Ronald L. Schow ◽  
Harvey Dillon ◽  
Jessica Hillam ◽  
Mary M. Whitaker ◽  
J. Anthony Seikel
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Normal Development ◽  
Behavioral Assessment ◽  
The United States ◽  
Test Battery ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Binaural Interaction ◽  
Processing Abilities ◽  
Comprehensive Test

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.

scholarly journals Who is Right?: A word identification in noise test for young children using minimal pair distracters

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samuel Evans ◽  
Stuart Rosen
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Normative Data ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Word Identification ◽  
Minimal Pair ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Hearing Impairments ◽  
Speech In Noise ◽  
Perceptual Abilities

Many children have difficulties understanding speech. Reliable tools are needed to identify them in order to provide appropriate interventions. At present, there are relatively few assessments that test for subtle impairments in speech perception that have normative data from UK children. Here we present a new test, which evaluates children’s ability to identify target words in background noise by choosing between minimal pair alternatives that differ by a single articulatory phonetic feature. This new test of single word perception is (1) tailored to testing young children, (2) has minimal memory demands, (3) adapts to the child’s ability and (4) does not require reading or verbal output. Although designed for young children, it is also readily applicable in adults. Here, we show that speech in noise abilities in this particular task develop rapidly through childhood until they reach maturity at around ten years of age. We make this test freely available, with normative data for listeners aged 4-25 years old, and hope that it will be useful to researchers and clinicians in the assessment of speech perceptual abilities in children with hearing impairments, Developmental Language Disorder (DLD), Dyslexia and Auditory Processing Disorder (APD).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document