| 1 |
Age: 6-9 years; G1: 25 children in First Grade; G2: 22 children in Third Grade; Native language: English. |
SCAN (Keith, 1986): Filtered Speech, Speech in Noise, Competing (Dichotic) Words. |
The retest with SCAN between 6 and 7 weeks showed significant improvement in the Filtered Speech and Competing Words tests. Only the Speech in Noise test showed no difference. |
The second SCAN administration may provide a better estimate of the best performance of an individual child.
The lack of standardization of the second score (retest) confounds a simple interpretation of such scores. |
| 2 |
Age: 8-10 years; n = 106 students in the 2nd and 3rd Grades. After audiometry and the inclusion and exclusion criteria were applied, 57 individuals with typical development were evaluated, 33 females and 24 males; Native language: Brazilian Portuguese. |
Zaidan's Auditory Processing Screening Battery (2001): Filtered Speech, Speech in Noise, Competing Words. |
Filtered speech: statistically significant difference in the performance of individuals aged 8, 9 and 10 years.
Speech in Noise and Competing Words: differences were not statistically significant. There was a statistically significant difference in the Total Battery, which is the sum of the correct answers in each of the subtests (Filtered Speech, Speech in Noise and Competing Words). |
There was a statistically significant difference in the combined analysis of the performance of the individuals in the three age groups, considering the total auditory processing screening battery, that is, the results improved as the age increased. |
| 3 |
n = 40 students, with no auditory or phonological complaints; Group 1 (n = 20; age: 7 years), Group 2 (n = 20; age: 8 years). Native language: Brazilian Portuguese. |
Zaidan's Auditory Processing Screening Battery (2001): Filtered Speech, Speech in Noise, Competing Words. |
The mean score for children aged 7 years in the Filtered Speech, Speech in Noise and Competitive Words tests was 33.35; 32.5 and 71.8, respectively; In the 8-year-old children it was: 33.5; 34.5 and 79.9. |
Differences in findings compared to other studies demonstrate the need to evaluate a larger number of children from different geographic regions. |
| 4 |
n = 215 children, with no auditory or phonological complaints; G1: 109 children aged 7 years; G2: 106 children aged 8 years; Native language: Brazilian Portuguese. |
Zaidan's Auditory Processing Screening Battery (2001): Filtered Speech, Speech in Noise, Competing Words. |
The mean scores and standard deviation in the Filtered Speech, Speech in Noise and Competing Words tests in children aged 7 years were, respectively, 24.4 ± 5.1; 33.4 ± 3.4 and 76.5 ± 9.7 points, and in children aged 8 years, they were, respectively, 24.0 ± 4.8; 34.0 ± 3.0 and 77.5 ± 10.8 points. |
The scores of this study cannot be generalized to normal values for all Brazilian children due to regional variability. |
| 5 |
Age: 5-10 years; n = 287 children; G1: children aged 5-6 years; G2: children aged 7-8 years; G3: children aged 9-10 years; Native language: Brazilian Portuguese. |
Simplified Auditory processing assessment (ASPA): Sound Localization (SL), memory for verbal sounds (MSSV) and nonverbal sounds in sequence (MSSNV). |
The schoolchildren of this study had more difficulty in memorizing sequences of sounds or temporal order than locating the sound source. |
A total of 56% of the students passed the screening. Regarding the groups studied, Groups I and II had a larger number of children who failed the auditory screening, considering both immitance and auditory processing tests. |
| 6 |
Age: 7-10 years; n = 130 students from 1st to 4th grades; Native language: Brazilian Portuguese. |
Simplified Auditory processing assessment (ASPA): sound localization tests, memory for verbal sounds (MSSV) and nonverbal sounds in sequence (MSSNV). |
A total of 76.15% of the children passed the ASPA. Moreover, it was observed that the test in which the students showed the worst performance was the memory for verbal sounds in sequence. 12.3% of the students failed the immittance screening and ASPA test. |
Most of the subjects passed the ASPA test, with a higher frequency of correct answers in the sound localization test. There was no statistical association between the immittance screening result and the ASPA result. |
| 7 |
Age: 4-6 years; n = 61 children; Native language: Brazilian Portuguese. |
Simplified Auditory Processing Assessment (ASPA): sound localization tests, memory for verbal sounds (MSSV) and nonverbal sounds in sequence (MSSNV). |
There was an alteration in at least one of the auditory skills investigated in 24.6% of the children. |
Younger children showed a greater occurrence of alterations in auditory skill tests and acoustic immitance measures. |
| 8 |
Age: 10-13 years; n = 51 Portuguese children with normal peripheral hearing; Native language: European Portuguese. |
Scale of Auditory Behaviors (SAB) questionnaire adapted to European Portuguese was applied to the parents. The children were submitted to the Sound Localization, Memory for verbal sounds and Nonverbal Sounds in Sequence, Speech in Noise, Dichotic Digits test, Harmonic Pattern Dichotic Digits Test, Standard duration test and Gaps-In-Noise test. |
A significant correlation was observed between the questionnaire score and the behavioral test results, with highest of them being observed in the tests related to temporal processing. |
There was a correlation between the SAB score and the results obtained in the behavioral auditory tests in Portuguese children, suggesting that this questionnaire can be used in auditory processing screening. |
| 9 |
Age: 8-13 years; n = 400 children with no hearing or language complaints; G1 (8-9 years, n = 82), G2 (9-10 years, n = 77), G3 (10-11 years, n = 78), G4 (11-12 years, n = 82), G5 (12-13 years, n = 81); English speakers. |
Screening Test for Auditory Processing (STAP) divided into four subtests: (1) Speech perception in noise; (2) Dichotic consonant-vowel; (3) Gap detection; (4) Auditory Memory. |
It was determined that 16% of the children were at risk for CAPD at one or more STAP subtests.
Among these 16%, the auditory memory test was most often affected (73.4%), followed by binaural integration (65.6%), auditory separation/closure (59.4%) and temporal resolution (53.1%). |
The STAP is able to detect three different mechanisms related to auditory processing (binaural integration, temporal resolution and speech perception in noise with auditory memory). The study also indicates that the number of children at risk for each of the different auditory processes varies. |
| 10 |
Age: 6-11 years; n = 109 children with hearing complaints despite normal peripheral hearing; English speakers. |
SCAN-C (Keith, 2000); IMAP (Moore et al., 2010); CHAPS questionnaire for teachers (Smoski et al., 1998). |
There was a correlation between the tests and the CHAPS questionnaire. |
Of the different CHAPS domains, only the Ideal CHAPS, Auditory Memory, and Attention were correlated with the TPAC. |
| 11 |
G1 = 847 children aged 5-13 years, with normal peripheral hearing and no language or learning complaints; G2 = 46 children aged 5-14 years, who were reevaluated after 7 days (Feather Squadron and conventional evaluation); English speakers. |
Feather Squadron: Lateralization and detection, Auditory memory, Temporal resolution, Dichotic listening, Figure-Ground and Speech in Noise. |
A significant correlation was observed between the results of most auditory skills assessed with the Feather Squadron and the traditional auditory processing evaluation test. |
The Feather Squadron test battery is a time-efficient, feasible, and reliable approach for auditory processing screening in school-aged children. |
