The Effect of Varying Test Administration and Scoring Procedures on Three Tests of (Central) Auditory Processing Disorder

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria E. Pomponio ◽  
Stephanie Nagle ◽  
Jennifer L. Smart ◽  
Shannon Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Test Administration ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Central Auditory Processing Disorder

scholarly journals The Effect of Varying Test Administration and Scoring Procedures on Three Tests of (Central) Auditory Processing Disorder

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (08) ◽  
pp. 694-702
Author(s):  
Maria E. Pomponio ◽  
Stephanie Nagle ◽  
Jennifer L. Smart ◽  
Shannon Palmer
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Repeated Measures ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Test Administration ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Test Length ◽  
Scoring Methods ◽  
Scoring Method ◽  
Central Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Test Items

AbstractThere is currently no widely accepted objective method used to identify (central) auditory processing disorder ([C]APD). Audiologists often rely on behavioral test methods to diagnose (C)APD, which can be highly subjective. This is problematic in light of relevant literature that has reported a lack of adequate graduate-level preparation related to (C)APD. This is further complicated when exacerbated by the use of inconsistent test procedures from those used to standardize tests of (C)APD, resulting in higher test variability. The consequences of modifying test administration and scoring methods for tests of (C)APD are not currently documented in the literature.This study aims to examine the effect of varying test administration and scoring procedures from those used to standardize tests of (C)APD on test outcome.This study used a repeated-measures design in which all participants were evaluated in all test conditions. The effects of varying the number of test items administered and the use of repetitions of missed test items on the test outcome score were assessed for the frequency patterns test (FPT), competing sentences test (CST), and the low-pass filtered speech test (LPFST). For the CST only, two scoring methods were used (a strict and a lax criterion) to determine whether or not scoring method affected test outcome.Thirty-three native English-speaking adults served as participants. All participants had normal hearing (as defined by thresholds of 25-dB HL or better) at all octave band frequencies from 500 to 4000 Hz, with thresholds of 55-dB HL or better at 8000 Hz. All participants had normal cognitive function as assessed by the Mini-Mental State Examination.Paired samples t-tests were used to evaluate the differences in test outcome when varying the CST scoring method. A 3 × 2 × 2 repeated-measures factorial analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to determine the effects of test, length, and repetitions on outcome score for all three tests of auditory processing ability. Individual 2 × 2 repeated-measures two-way ANOVAs were subsequently conducted for each test to further evaluate interactions.There was no effect of scoring method on the CST outcome. There was a significant main effect of repetition use for the FPT and LPFST, in that test scores were greater when corrected for repetitions. An interaction between test length and repetitions was found for the LPFST only, such that there was a greater effect of repetition use when a shorter test was administered compared with a longer test.Test outcome may be affected when test administration procedures are varied from those used to standardize the test, lending itself to the broader possibility that the overall diagnosis of (C)APD may be subsequently affected.

The Importance of Modality Specificity in Diagnosing Central Auditory Processing Disorder

2005 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 112-123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anthony T. Cacace ◽  
Dennis J. McFarland
Keyword(s):  
Auditory Processing ◽  
Discriminant Validity ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Large Body ◽  
Critical Discussion ◽  
Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Central Auditory Processing ◽  
Central Auditory Processing Disorder ◽  
Scientific Disciplines ◽  
Modality Specificity

Purpose: This article argues for the use of modality specificity as a unifying framework by which to conceptualize and diagnose central auditory processing disorder (CAPD). The intent is to generate dialogue and critical discussion in this area of study. Method: Research in the cognitive, behavioral, and neural sciences that relates to the concept of modality specificity was reviewed and synthesized. Results: Modality specificity has a long history as an organizing construct within a diverse collection of mainstream scientific disciplines. The principle of modality specificity was contrasted with the unimodal inclusive framework, which holds that auditory tests alone are sufficient to make the CAPD diagnosis. Evidence from a large body of data demonstrated that the unimodal framework was unable to delineate modality-specific processes from more generalized dysfunction; it lacked discriminant validity and resulted in an incomplete assessment. Consequently, any hypothetical model resulting from incomplete assessments or potential therapies that are based on indeterminate diagnoses are themselves questionable, and caution should be used in their application. Conclusions: Improving specificity of diagnosis is an imperative core issue to the area of CAPD. Without specificity, the concept has little explanatory power. Because of serious flaws in concept and design, the unimodal inclusive framework should be abandoned in favor of a more valid approach that uses modality specificity.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document