PURPOSE: In this study, the authors investigated the relationships between 3 tests used to screen for (central) auditory processing disorder ([C]APD)--the Children's Auditory Performance Scale (CHAPS; W. J. Smoski, M. A. Brunt, & J. C. Tannahill, 1998), the Screening Instrument for Targeting Educational Risk (SIFTER; K. Anderson, 1989), and the Test of Auditory Perceptual Skills--Revised (TAPS-R; M. Y. Gardner, 1997)-and 4 tests used to diagnostically assess for (C)APD: Low-Pass Filtered Speech (LPFS), Competing Sentences (CS), Two-Pair Dichotic Digits (DD), and Frequency Patterns With Linguistic Report (FP). METHOD: The screening and diagnostic (C)APD tests results of 104 children (71 boys, 33 girls) aged 6.9-14.3 years were reviewed following their attendance at a university clinic in Brisbane, Australia. RESULTS: Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient analysis showed weak (r = .22, p < .05) to moderate (r = .47, p < .01) correlations predominantly between the short-term and working memory test results of the TAPS-R and the DD and FP test results of the (C)AP test battery. Linear and binary logistic regression analyses showed a poor ability of the CHAPS, SIFTER, and TAPS-R test results to predict the individual LPFS, CS, DD, or FP test results or the overall risk for (C)APD. CONCLUSION: The CHAPS, SIFTER, and TAPS-R should be used to highlight concerns about a child but not to determine whether a diagnostic (C)AP assessment is particularly warranted.
PURPOSE: In this study, the authors investigated the relationships between 3 tests used to screen for (central) auditory processing disorder ([C]APD)--the Children's Auditory Performance Scale (CHAPS; W. J. Smoski, M. A. Brunt, & J. C. Tannahill, 1998), the Screening Instrument for Targeting Educational Risk (SIFTER; K. Anderson, 1989), and the Test of Auditory Perceptual Skills--Revised (TAPS-R; M. Y. Gardner, 1997)-and 4 tests used to diagnostically assess for (C)APD: Low-Pass Filtered Speech (LPFS), Competing Sentences (CS), Two-Pair Dichotic Digits (DD), and Frequency Patterns With Linguistic Report (FP). METHOD: The screening and diagnostic (C)APD tests results of 104 children (71 boys, 33 girls) aged 6.9-14.3 years were reviewed following their attendance at a university clinic in Brisbane, Australia. RESULTS: Pearson's product-moment correlation coefficient analysis showed weak (r = .22, p < .05) to moderate (r = .47, p < .01) correlations predominantly between the short-term and working memory test results of the TAPS-R and the DD and FP test results of the (C)AP test battery. Linear and binary logistic regression analyses showed a poor ability of the CHAPS, SIFTER, and TAPS-R test results to predict the individual LPFS, CS, DD, or FP test results or the overall risk for (C)APD. CONCLUSION: The CHAPS, SIFTER, and TAPS-R should be used to highlight concerns about a child but not to determine whether a diagnostic (C)AP assessment is particularly warranted.
Authors: Nadja Cristina Furtado Back; Ana Chrystina de Souza Crippa; Tatiana Izabelle Jaworski de Sá Riechi; Liliane Desgualdo Pereira Journal: Int Arch Otorhinolaryngol Date: 2021-02-19
Authors: Ellen de Wit; Pim van Dijk; Sandra Hanekamp; Margot I Visser-Bochane; Bert Steenbergen; Cees P van der Schans; Margreet R Luinge Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2018 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 3.570