title: Comparison of a screening test and screening checklist for auditory processing disorders.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This study was carried out to determine the relationship between two screening tools to detect auditory processing disorders (APDs). The two screening tools were the screening checklist for auditory processing (SCAP) and screening test for auditory processing (STAP).
  
  
  METHODS
  Four hundred school-going children (218 males, 182 females) studying in grades III-VIII in three schools were randomly selected for the study. These children, aged 8-13 years, were screened using the SCAP and the STAP. The SCAP was administered by teachers while the STAP was administered by an audiologist. The children were categorised as at-risk for APD by comparing their scores with the cut-off criteria recommended for SCAP and STAP. The relationship between the two screening tools was determined.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Among the 400 children, 49 (12.3%) children were found to be at-risk for APD on the SCAP and 64 (16%) were found to be at-risk on the STAP. A Chi square test of association was carried out using the data of children who were passed or referred on each of the screening tools (SCAP and STAP). A significant association (χ(2)=2.93, df=1, p<0.001) was found between the two screening tools. This was confirmed using Spearman's rank correlation coefficient, which revealed a significant correlation (r=0.86, p<0.001) between SCAP and STAP. Using the scores of 31 children referred on both the screening tools, a relationship was derived between the SCAP and subsections of the STAP (speech-in-noise, dichotic consonant vowel (CV) combinations, gap detection and auditory memory). Pearson's product moment correlation coefficient indicated the presence of a significant correlation (r=-0.46, p<0.01) between the SCAP and the auditory memory subsection of the STAP. However, no significant correlation was seen for other three subsections.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  The study indicates an overall high correlation between the SCAP and the STAP. However, both the screening tools examine different aspects of auditory processing and thus, should be administered together to identify more children at-risk for APD.
authors.affiliation: Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Manasagangotri, Mysore 570006, India. asha_yathiraj@rediffmail.com
authors.forename: Asha
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Yathiraj
authors.forename: Akshay Raj
authors.initials: AR
authors.lastname: Maggu
mesh_terms: D000293:Adolescent; D000367:Age Factors; D001302:Audiometry, Speech / Q000379:methods*; D001308:Auditory Perceptual Disorders / Q000175:diagnosis*; D057189:Checklist; D016009:Chi-Square Distribution; D002648:Child; D004007:Dichotic Listening Tests / Q000379:methods*; D005260:Female; D006801:Humans; D008297:Male; D008403:Mass Screening / Q000379:methods*; D011446:Prospective Studies; D018570:Risk Assessment; D012680:Sensitivity and Specificity