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
SCREENING CHECKLIST FOR AUDITORY PROCESSING IN ADULTS (SCAP-A): DEVELOPMENT AND PRELIMINARY FINDINGS
1
Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, Karnataka, India
Publication date: 2014-03-31
Corresponding author
Ramya Vaidyanath
Ramya Vaidyanath, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, Karnataka, India, e-mail: ramyavaidyanath@gmail.com
Ramya Vaidyanath, Department of Audiology, All India Institute of Speech and Hearing, Mysore, Karnataka, India, e-mail: ramyavaidyanath@gmail.com
J Hear Sci 2014;4(1):27-37
KEYWORDS
ABSTRACT
Background:
Auditory processing deficits can exist in older adults who have normal hearing sensitivity. However, checklists to screen for the condition are sparse. Hence, the study aimed to develop two screening checklists to identify auditory processing deficits in older adults, one for the individual and one for the family. The study also aimed to compare the responses on the two checklists.
Material and Methods:
Through an interview, data were collected using the two developed checklists. The checklists, with 12 questions each, tapped auditory separation/closure, auditory integration, temporal ordering, as well as memory and attention. The checklists were administered on 102 participants aged 55 to 75 years and on 84 family members.
Results:
It was found that 98% of the individuals had difficulty on at least one item of the checklist. Values on the kappa measure of agreement were higher when a 2-point rating scale was used instead of a 3-point one. Responses of older individuals formed five clusters, while those of the family members formed four. Responses to questions within each of the clusters varied; despite this variation, questions that were rated high or low were similar on the two checklists.
Conclusions:
The study revealed that a large number of older individuals have symptoms of auditory processing disorders, and the checklists help to detect them. Validation of the checklists, which is in progress, would confirm their utility in detecting subjects with auditory processing difficulties.
Auditory processing deficits can exist in older adults who have normal hearing sensitivity. However, checklists to screen for the condition are sparse. Hence, the study aimed to develop two screening checklists to identify auditory processing deficits in older adults, one for the individual and one for the family. The study also aimed to compare the responses on the two checklists.
Material and Methods:
Through an interview, data were collected using the two developed checklists. The checklists, with 12 questions each, tapped auditory separation/closure, auditory integration, temporal ordering, as well as memory and attention. The checklists were administered on 102 participants aged 55 to 75 years and on 84 family members.
Results:
It was found that 98% of the individuals had difficulty on at least one item of the checklist. Values on the kappa measure of agreement were higher when a 2-point rating scale was used instead of a 3-point one. Responses of older individuals formed five clusters, while those of the family members formed four. Responses to questions within each of the clusters varied; despite this variation, questions that were rated high or low were similar on the two checklists.
Conclusions:
The study revealed that a large number of older individuals have symptoms of auditory processing disorders, and the checklists help to detect them. Validation of the checklists, which is in progress, would confirm their utility in detecting subjects with auditory processing difficulties.
REFERENCES (48)
1.
Willott J, Lister J. The aging auditory system: anatomic and physiologic changes and implications for rehabilitation. Int J Audiol, 2003; 42: 2S3–2S10.
2.
Frisina RD. Possible neurochemical and neuroanatomical bases of age-related hearing loss – presbycusis. Semin Hear, 2001; 22(3): 213–26.
3.
Stach BA, Hornsby BW, Rosenfeld MAL, DeChicchis AR. The complexity of auditory aging. Semin Hear, 2009; 30(2): 94–111.
5.
Konkle DF, Beasley DS, Bess FH. Intelligibility of time-altered speech in relation to chronological aging. J Speech Hear Res, 1977; 20(1): 108.
6.
Rodriguez GP, DiSarno NJ, Hardiman CJ. Central auditory processing in normal-hearing elderly adults. Int J Audiol, 1990; 29(2): 85–92.
7.
Jerger J, Chmiel R, Allen J, Wilson A. Effects of age and gender on dichotic sentence identification. Ear Hear, 1994; 15(4): 274–86.
8.
Jerger J, Jerger S, Oliver T, Pirozzolo F. Speech understanding in the elderly. Ear Hear, 1989; 10(2): 79–89.
9.
Anderson K. SIFTER: Screening Instrument for Targeting Educational Risk in Children Identified by Hearing Screening or Who Have Known Hearing Loss. Tampa, FL: Educational Audiology Association; 1989.
10.
Cherry R. Selective Auditory Attention Test (SAAT). St. Louis, MO: Auditec of St.Louis; 1980.
11.
Fisher L. Fisher’s Auditory Problems Checklist. Bemidji, MN: Life Products; 1976.
12.
Keith RW. SCAN: A Screening Test for Auditory Processing Disorders. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation; 1986.
13.
Smoski WJ, Brunt MA, Tannahill JC. Listening characteristics of children with central auditory processing disorders. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, 1992; 23(2): 145–52.
14.
VanDyke J. Evaluation of classroom listening behaviors. Rocky Mountain Journal of Communication Disorders, 1985; 1: 8–13.
15.
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.
16.
Yathiraj A, Mascarenhas K. Auditory profile of children with suspected auditory processing disorder. Journal of Indian Speech and Hearing Association, 2004;18: 6–14.
17.
Musiek FE, Gollegly KM, Lamb LE, Lamb P. Selected issues in screening for central auditory processing dysfunction. Semin Hear, 1990; 11(4): 372–83.
18.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders [Technical Report]. 2005. Available from www.asha.org/policy.
19.
American Academy of Audiology. American Academy of Audiology Clinical Practice Guidelines: Diagnosis, Treatment and Management of Children and Adults with Central Auditory Processing Disorder. American Academy of Audiology, 2010. Available from http://www.audiology.org/resou....
20.
Canadian Interorganizational Steering Group for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology. Canadian Guidelines on Auditory Processing Disorder in Children and Adults: Assessment and Intervention; 2012.
21.
Yathiraj A, Maggu AR. Screening Test for Auditory Processing (STAP): a preliminary report. J Am Acad Audiol, 2013; 24(9): 867–78.
22.
Yathiraj A, Maggu AR. Screening Test for Auditory Processing (STAP): revelations from principal component analysis. SSW Reports, 2012; 34(3): 16–24.
23.
Keith R. Development and standardization of SCAN-A: test of auditory processing disorders in adolescents and adults. J Am Acad Audiol, 1995; 6(4): 286–92.
24.
Keith RW. SCAN-3 for Adolescents and Adults: Tests for Auditory Processing Disorders. San Antonio, TX: Pearson; 2009.
25.
Schow RL, Seikel JA. Screening for (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders. In: Musiek FE, Chermak GD (eds.), Handbook of (Central) Auditory Processing Disorder: Auditory neuroscience and diagnosis. I. San Diego: Plural Publishing; 2007; 137–61.
26.
Kinsella K, He W. An Aging World: 2008, International Population Reports, P95/09-1. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 2009.
27.
Central Statistics Office, Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation. Situation Analysis of the Elderly in India. New Delhi: Government of India, 2011.
28.
Gelfand SA, Piper N, Silman S. Consonant recognition in quiet and in noise with aging among normal hearing listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 1986; 80(6): 1589–98.
29.
Grady CL, Craik FIM. Changes in memory processing with age. Curr Opin Neurobiol, 2000; 10(2): 224–31.
30.
Prosser S, Turrini M, Arslan E. Effects of different noises on speech discrimination by the elderly. Acta Otolaryngol Suppl (Stockh), 1991; 476: 136–42.
31.
Tun PA, O’Kane G, Wingfield A. Distraction by competing speech in young and older adult listeners. Psychol Aging, 2002; 17(3): 453–67.
32.
All India Institute of Speech and Hearing. Ethical Guidelines for Bio-behavioural Research Involving Human Subjects. Mysore: All India Institute of Speech and Hearing; 2009.
33.
Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach’s alpha. Int J Med Educ, 2011; 2: 53–5.
34.
Moore BC, Peters RW, Glasberg BR. Detection of temporal gaps in sinusoids by elderly subjects with and without hearing loss. J Acoust Soc Am, 1992; 92: 1923–32.
35.
Snell KB. Age-related changes in temporal gap detection. J Acoust Soc Am, 1997; 101: 2214–20.
36.
Larrabee GJ, Levin HS. Memory self-ratings and objective test performance in a normal elderly sample. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol, 1986; 8(3): 275–84.
37.
Park DC, Smith AD, Dudley WN, Lafronza VN. Effects of age and a divided attention task presented during encoding and retrieval on memory. J Exp Psychol, 1989; 15(6): 1185–91.
38.
Anderson ND, Iidaka T, Cabeza R, Kapur S, McIntosh AR, Craik FI. The effects of divided attention on encoding- and retrieval-related brain activity: a PET study of younger and older adults. J Cogn Neurosci, 2000; 12(5): 775–92.
39.
Katz J. Classification of auditory processing disorders. In: Katz J et al. (eds.), Central Auditory Processing: A Transdisciplinary View. St Louis: Mosby, 1992; 81–91.
40.
Efron R, Crandall P, Koss B, Divenyi P, Yund E. Central auditory processing: III. The “cocktail party” effect and anterior temporal lobectomy. Brain Lang, 1983; 19(2): 254–63.
41.
Ellis M. Amygdala norepinephrine involved in two separate long-term memory retrieval processes. Brain Res, 1985; 342(1): 191–5.
43.
Stuss DT, Benson DF. Neurophysiological studies of the frontal lobes. Psychological Bulletin, 1984; 95: 3–28.
44.
Hackert V, Den Heijer T, Oudkerk M, Koudstaal P, Hofman A, Breteler M. Hippocampal head size associated with verbal memory performance in nondemented elderly. Neuroimage, 2002; 17(3): 1365–72.
45.
Petersen RC, Jack CR, Xu Y-C, Waring SC, O’Brien PC, Smith GE et al. Memory and MRI-based hippocampal volumes in aging and AD. Neurology, 2000; 54(3): 581–7.
46.
Tisserand D, Visser P, Van Boxtel M, Jolles J. The relation between global and limbic brain volumes on MRI and cognitive performance in healthy individuals across the age range. Neurobiol Aging, 2000; 21(4): 569–76.
47.
Wong P, Jin JX, Gunasekera GM, Abel R, Lee ER, Dhar S. Aging and cortical mechanisms of speech perception in noise. Neuropsychologia, 2009; 47(3): 693–703.
48.
Murphy DR, Schneider BA, Speranza F, Moraglia G. A comparison of higher order auditory processes in younger and older adults. Psychol Aging, 2006; 21(4): 763–73.
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.
