Evaluation of selected auditory tests in school-age children suspected of auditory processing disorders.
OBJECTIVE
To compare the auditory function of normal-hearing children attending mainstream schools who were referred for an auditory evaluation because of listening/hearing problems (suspected auditory processing disorders [susAPD]) with that of normal-hearing control children.


METHODS
Sixty-five children with a normal standard audiometric evaluation, ages 6-14 yr (32 of whom were referred for susAPD, with the rest age-matched control children), completed a battery of four auditory tests: a dichotic test of competing sentences; a simple discrimination of short tone pairs differing in fundamental frequency at varying interstimulus intervals (TDT); a discrimination task using consonant cluster minimal pairs of real words (CCMP), and an adaptive threshold task for detecting a brief tone presented either simultaneously with a masker (simultaneous masking) or immediately preceding it (backward masking). Regression analyses, including age as a covariate, were performed to determine the extent to which the performance of the two groups differed on each task. Age-corrected z-scores were calculated to evaluate the effectiveness of the complete battery in discriminating the groups.


RESULTS
The performance of the susAPD group was significantly poorer than the control group on all but the masking tasks, which failed to differentiate the two groups. The CCMP discriminated the groups most effectively, as it yielded the lowest number of control children with abnormal scores, and performance in both groups was independent of age. By contrast, the proportion of control children who performed poorly on the competing sentences test was unacceptably high. Together, the CCMP (verbal) and TDT (nonverbal) tasks detected impaired listening skills in 56% of the children who were referred to the clinic, compared with 6% of the control children. Performance on the two tasks was not correlated.


CONCLUSIONS
Two of the four tests evaluated, the CCMP and TDT, proved effective in differentiating the two groups of children of this study. The application of both tests increased the proportion of susAPD children who performed poorly compared with the application of each test alone, while reducing the proportion of control subjects who performed poorly. The findings highlight the importance of carrying out a complete auditory evaluation in children referred for medical attention, even if their standard audiometric evaluation is unremarkable.
Vanniasegaram
Iyngaram
I
Department of Audiological Medicine, St Georges Hospital, Hornchurch, Essex, United Kingdom.
Cohen
Mazal
M
Rosen
Stuart
S
D000293:Adolescent; D001299:Audiometry / Q000379:methods; D001308:Auditory Perceptual Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis*; D001309:Auditory Threshold / Q000502:physiology; D002648:Child; D004007:Dichotic Listening Tests; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008282:Mainstreaming, Education; D008297:Male; D010470:Perceptual Masking; D012720:Severity of Illness Index; D013063:Speech Discrimination Tests; D011795:Surveys and Questionnaires