Development of a screening battery for auditory processing disorder in 6-year olds
MetadataShow full item record
Type of Workapplication/pdf
xiii, 94 pages
DepartmentTowson University. Department of Audiology, Speech-Language Pathology and Deaf Studies
RightsCopyright protected, all rights reserved.
There are no restrictions on access to this document. An internet release form signed by the author to display this document online is on file with Towson University Special Collections and Archives.
Diagnostic assessment of Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) is currently limited to children 7 years of age and older (AAA, 2010; ASHA, 2005). This is due to the variability of auditory processing (AP) abilities in children younger than 7 years of age (AAA, 2010; ASHA, 2005; Bavin, Grayden, Scott, & Stefanakis, 2010; Dawes & Bishop, 2008; Stollman, van Velzen, Simkens, Snik, & van den Broek, 2003; Stollman, Neijenhuis, Jansen, Simkens, Snik, & van den Broek, 2004a; Stollman, van Velzen, Simkens, Snik, & van den Broek, 2004b). It has been recommended that children younger than 7 years of age who present with listening difficulties be screened for APD (Musiek, Gollegly, Lamb, & Lamb, 1990a). To explore the possibility of early identification through screening, this pilot study looked at the feasibility of screening 6-year-old children for APD. A battery of APD measures comprised of the Auditory Figure Ground + 8 dB SNR test, the Dichotic Digits Test (DDT), and a revised Pitch Pattern Sequence (PPS) test, was administered to 23 typically developing 6-year old children. With modifications to administration, stimuli and scoring, the battery was successfully administered to all participants. A moderate amount of variability was noted on both the DDT and the revised PPS test and a ceiling effect was noted on the AFG + 8 dB SNR test. Results suggest that with the addition of more data collected from a larger sample size, usable normative data ranges for the DDT and revised PPS test could be created for 6-year olds. Due to the ceiling effect noted on the AFG + 8 dB SNR test, a more challenging speech-in-noise measure that better mimics a typical classroom environment should be administered in a future study. Participants with a history of Otitis Media with Effusion (OME) or Pressure Equalization (PE) tubes had poorer phonological processing abilities than those with unremarkable otologic histories; however all participants' language abilities were judged to be normal based on the results of two language screening measures administered as a part of this pilot study. No gender or age (6:0 to 6:5 versus 6:6 to 6:11) effects were found on language or AP abilities. It should be noted that this study had a small sample size; therefore these findings should be interpreted with caution. More research is needed with a larger sample size before this screening battery can be used clinically.