Current Issue
Volumes and Issues
For Authors
Manuscript Guidelines
Review Process
Conflict of Interest
Copyright
About the Journal
Editorial Board
Aim and Scope
Policy and Ethical Guidelines
Promotion of the Journal
Print-Version Subscription
Publisher and Contact Information
Contact Information
Sign in as an AUTHOR/REVIEWER
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
RELATION BETWEEN TWO SCORING PROCEDURES TO
ASSESS AUDITORY MEMORY AND SEQUENCING ABILITIES
1
Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, Karnataka, India
Publication date: 2014-12-31
Corresponding author
Ramya Vaidyanath
Ramya Vaidyanath, Junior Research Fellow, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, Karnataka, India, e-mail: ramyavaidyanath@gmail.com
Ramya Vaidyanath, Junior Research Fellow, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, Karnataka, India, e-mail: ramyavaidyanath@gmail.com
J Hear Sci 2014;4(4):42-50
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Tests to assess auditory memory are scored differently, but there is scanty information regarding the effect of the scoring procedure.
Material and Method:
The current retrospective study compared two scoring procedures for evaluating auditory memory in 189 children aged 5 to 11 years. One scoring procedure was the original memory technique used by Yathiraj and Vijayalakshmi. The other was a modification calculated using the same data obtained by Yathiraj and Vijayalakshmi. The original auditory memory and sequencing scoring procedure required the administration of the entire test, while the alternate scoring procedure, that calculated auditory memory and sequencing span, did not.
Results:
A Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the two scoring procedure was calculated. Both scoring procedures showed gradual improvement with age. A significant high correlation was found between the two scoring procedures when the age groups were combined.
Conclusions:
Since the two scoring procedures provide similar information, it is recommended that, for individuals with relatively poor auditory memory and sequencing abilities, the span should be the choice of scoring. This would avoid a sense of failure when individuals are tested on the more difficult longer word-sequences. Additionally, it would make the test more time efficient. However, if subtle changes in performance across ages are to be determined, the original scoring procedure is recommended.
Tests to assess auditory memory are scored differently, but there is scanty information regarding the effect of the scoring procedure.
Material and Method:
The current retrospective study compared two scoring procedures for evaluating auditory memory in 189 children aged 5 to 11 years. One scoring procedure was the original memory technique used by Yathiraj and Vijayalakshmi. The other was a modification calculated using the same data obtained by Yathiraj and Vijayalakshmi. The original auditory memory and sequencing scoring procedure required the administration of the entire test, while the alternate scoring procedure, that calculated auditory memory and sequencing span, did not.
Results:
A Pearson’s correlation coefficient between the two scoring procedure was calculated. Both scoring procedures showed gradual improvement with age. A significant high correlation was found between the two scoring procedures when the age groups were combined.
Conclusions:
Since the two scoring procedures provide similar information, it is recommended that, for individuals with relatively poor auditory memory and sequencing abilities, the span should be the choice of scoring. This would avoid a sense of failure when individuals are tested on the more difficult longer word-sequences. Additionally, it would make the test more time efficient. However, if subtle changes in performance across ages are to be determined, the original scoring procedure is recommended.
REFERENCES (39)
1.
Adams A-M, Gathercole SE. Phonological working memory and speech production in preschool children. J Speech Lang Hear Res, 1995; 38(2): 403–14.
2.
Adams A-M. Phonological working memory and spoken language development in young children. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section A, 1996; 49(1): 216–33.
3.
Gathercole SE, Service E, Hitch GJ, Adams A-M, Martin AJ. Phonological short-term memory and vocabulary development: further evidence on the nature of the relationship. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 1999; 13(1): 65–77.
4.
Goldstein EB. Cognitive Psychology: Connecting mind, research and everyday experience. Second Edition, ed. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth; 2008.
5.
Muthuselvi T, Yathiraj A. Utility of the screening checklist for auditory processing (SCAP) in detecting (C)APD in children. Student research at AIISH, Mysore (article based on dissertation done at AIISH), 2009; 7: 159–75.
6.
Yathiraj A, Maggu AR. Screening Test for Auditory Processing (STAP): a preliminary report. J Am Acad Audiol, 2013;24(9): 867–78.
7.
Alloway TP, Gathercole SE, Adams AM, Willis C, Eaglen R, Lamont E. Working memory and phonological awareness as predictors of progress towards early learning goals at school entry. Brit J Dev Psychol, 2005; 23(3): 417–26.
8.
Daneman M, Carpenter PA. Individual differences in working memory and reading. J Verb Learn Verb Beh, 1980;19(4): 450–66.
9.
Gathercol SE, Pickering SJ. Working memory deficits in children with low achievements in the national curriculum at 7 years of age. Br J Educ Psychol, 2000; 70: 177–94.
10.
Gathercole S, Pickering S. Working memory deficits in children with special educational needs. British Journal of Special Education, 2001;28(2): 89–97.
11.
Gathercole SE, Brown L, Pickering SJ. Working memory assessments at school entry as longitudinal predictors of national curriculum attainment levels. Educational and Child Psychology, 2003; 20(3): 109–22.
12.
Schweizer K, Moosbrugger H. Attention and working memory as predictors of intelligence. Intelligence, 2004; 32(4): 329–47.
13.
Siegel LS, Linder BA. Short-term memory processes in children with reading and arithmetic learning disabilities. Dev Psychol, 1984; 20(2): 200–7.
14.
Swanson HL. Working memory in learning disability subgroups. J Exp Child Psychol, 1993;56(1): 87–114.
15.
Carlesimo GA, Marotta L, Vicari S. Long-term memory in mental retardation: evidence for a specific impairment in subjects with Down’s syndrome. Neuropsychologia, 1997; 35(1): 71–9.
16.
Yathiraj A, Vanaja CS, Muthuselvi T. Maturation of Auditory Processes in Children Aged 6 to 10 Years. Mysore: All India Institute of Speech and Hearing; 2010. http://203.129.241.86:8080/dig....
17.
Yathiraj A, Maggu AR. Screening Test for Auditory Processing (STAP): revelations from principal component analysis. SSW Reports, 2012; 34(3): 16–24.
18.
Pickering SJ, Gathercole SE. Working Memory Test Battery for Children. London: Psychological Corp; 2001.
19.
Alloway TP. The Automated Working Memory Assessment. London: Pearson Assessment; 2007.
20.
Yathiraj A, Vijayalakshmi CS. Kannada Auditory Memory and Sequencing Test. Mysore: All India Institute of Speech and Hearing; 2006. http://203.129.241.86:8080/dig....
21.
Anderson VA. Auditory memory span as tested by speech sounds. Am J Psychol, 1939; 52(1): 95–9.
23.
Wechsler D. Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX, Pearson; 2003.
24.
Wechsler D. Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale – Fourth Edition. San Antonio, TX, Pearson; 2008.
25.
Conway AR, Kane MJ, Bunting MF, Hambrick DZ, Wilhelm O, Engle RW. Working memory span tasks: A methodological review and user’s guide. Psychon Bull Rev, 2005; 12(5): 769–86.
26.
Yathiraj A, Mascarenhas K. Effect of Auditory Stimulation in Central Auditory Processing in Children with CAPD. Mysore: All India Institute of Speech and Hearing; 2003. http://203.129.241.86:8080/dig....
27.
Yathiraj A, Mascarenhas K. Auditory profile of children with suspected auditory processing disorder. Journal of Indian Speech and Hearing Association, 2004; 18: 6–14.
28.
Comrey AL, Lee HB. Elementary Statistics: A Problem Solving Approach. 4 ed. Morrisville, NC: Lulu.Com; 2007.
29.
Goodwin LD, Leech NL. Understanding correlation: factors that affect the size of r. Journal of Experimental Education, 2006; 74(3): 249–66.
30.
Huttenlocher J, Burke D. Why does memory span increase with age? Cognit Psychol, 1976; 8(1): 1–31.
31.
Gathercole SE, Pickering SJ, Ambridge B, Wearing H. The structure of working memory from 4 to 15 years of age. Dev Psychol, 2004; 40(2): 177–90.
32.
Alloway TP, Gathercole SE, Pickering SJ. Verbal and visuospatial short-term and working memory in children: are they separable? Child Dev, 2006; 77(6): 1698–716.
33.
Howard L, Polich J. P300 latency and memory span development. Dev Psychol, 1985; 21(2): 283–9.
34.
Smith ME, Halgren E, Sokolik M, Baudena P, Musolino A, Liegeois-Chauvel C et al. The intracranial topography of the P3 event-related potential elicited during auditory oddball. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 1990; 76(3): 235–48.
35.
Halgren E, Baudena P, Clarke JM, Heit G, Liégeois C, Chauvel P et al. Intracerebral potentials to rare target and distractor auditory and visual stimuli. I. Superior temporal plane and parietal lobe. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 1995; 94(3): 191–220.
36.
Halgren E, Marinkovic K, Chauvel P. Generators of the late cognitive potentials in auditory and visual oddball tasks. Electroencephalogr Clin Neurophysiol, 1998; 106(2): 156–64.
37.
Ellis M. Amygdala norepinephrine involved in two separate long-term memory retrieval processes. Brain Res, 1985; 342(1): 191–5.
39.
Henry LA, Millar S. Memory span increase with age: A test of two hypotheses. J Exp Child Psychol, 1991;51(3): 459–84.
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
