PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical utility of the Children's Auditory Processing Performance Scale (CHAPPS; Smoski, Brunt, & Tannahill, 1992) to evaluate listening ability in 12-year-old children referred for auditory processing assessment. METHOD: This was a prospective case control study of 97 children (age range = 11;4 [years;months] to 12;7). Auditory processing disorder (APD) was diagnosed based on findings of deficits on at least 1 nonverbal test and on at least 2 tests of an auditory processing test battery. Clinically referred children were grouped as APD (n = 38) or non-APD (n = 20). RESULTS: The study found that (a) the APD group performed lower than the non-APD group on the Quiet, Ideal, Memory (p < .0001), and Attention (p < .05) subscales of the CHAPPS; (b) the non-APD group performed lower than the group with normal hearing on the Noise, Multiple Inputs, and Attention subscales (p < .0001); and (c) there were significant moderate-to-strong correlations (Spearman's ρ > .04) between Dichotic Digits, Duration Pattern tests, and the CHAPPS Attention, Memory, and total scores. CONCLUSION: The CHAPPS may be a clinically useful tool to evaluate listening ability in 12-year-old children suspected of having APD. Restricting use of the CHAPPS to older children may help address its limitations as reported by other studies.
PURPOSE: To investigate the clinical utility of the Children's Auditory Processing Performance Scale (CHAPPS; Smoski, Brunt, & Tannahill, 1992) to evaluate listening ability in 12-year-old children referred for auditory processing assessment. METHOD: This was a prospective case control study of 97 children (age range = 11;4 [years;months] to 12;7). Auditory processing disorder (APD) was diagnosed based on findings of deficits on at least 1 nonverbal test and on at least 2 tests of an auditory processing test battery. Clinically referred children were grouped as APD (n = 38) or non-APD (n = 20). RESULTS: The study found that (a) the APD group performed lower than the non-APD group on the Quiet, Ideal, Memory (p < .0001), and Attention (p < .05) subscales of the CHAPPS; (b) the non-APD group performed lower than the group with normal hearing on the Noise, Multiple Inputs, and Attention subscales (p < .0001); and (c) there were significant moderate-to-strong correlations (Spearman's ρ > .04) between Dichotic Digits, Duration Pattern tests, and the CHAPPS Attention, Memory, and total scores. CONCLUSION: The CHAPPS may be a clinically useful tool to evaluate listening ability in 12-year-old children suspected of having APD. Restricting use of the CHAPPS to older children may help address its limitations as reported by other studies.
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