Auditory processing, co-morbidities, and parental report of sleep disturbance in children with auditory processing disorder (APD)

A Multi-Sample Comparison and Rasch Analysis of the Evaluation of Children's Listening and Processing Skills Questionnaire

OBJECTIVES

Assessing listening difficulties and associated complaints can be challenging. Often, measures of peripheral auditory functions are within normal ranges, making clinicians feel unsure about proper management strategies. The range and nature of observed or experienced difficulties might be better captured using a qualitative measure. The Evaluation of Children's Listening and Processing Skills (ECLiPS) questionnaire was designed to broadly profile the auditory and cognitive problems often present in children with listening difficulties. This 38-item questionnaire was initially standardized in British children aged 6 to 11 years, was subsequently modified for use with North-American children, and was recently translated into Flemish-Dutch. This study aimed to compare typical scores of the Flemish version with the UK and US versions, and to evaluate and compare its psychometric quality based on Rasch analysis.

DESIGN

We selected 112 Flemish children aged 6 to 11 years with verified normal hearing and typical development, and asked two caregivers of every child to fill out the ECLiPS. Data from two comparator samples were analyzed, including responses for 71 North-American children and 650 British children. Typical values for ECLiPS factors and aggregates were determined as a function of age and gender, and meaningful differences across samples were analyzed. Rasch analyses were performed to evaluate whether ECLiPS response categories work as intended, and whether item scores fit a linear equal interval measurement scale that works the same way for everyone. Item and person metrics were derived, including separation and reliability indices. We investigated whether items function similarly across linguistically and culturally different samples.

RESULTS

ECLiPS scores were relatively invariant to age. Girls obtained higher scores compared with boys, mainly for items related to memory and attention, and pragmatic and social skills. Across ECLiPS versions, the most pronounced differences were found for items probing social skills. With respect to its psychometric quality, ECLiPS response categories work as intended, and ECLiPS items were found to fit the Rasch measurement scale. Cultural differences in responses were noted for some items, belonging to different factors. Item separation and reliability indices generally pointed toward sufficient variation in item difficulty. In general, person separation (and reliability) metrics, quantifying the instrument's ability to distinguish between poor and strong performers (in a reproducible manner), were low. This is expected from samples of typically developing children with homogeneous and high levels of listening ability.

CONCLUSIONS

Across the languages assessed here, the ECLiPS caregiver questionnaire was verified to be a psychometrically valid qualitative measure to assess listening and processing skills, which can be used to support the assessment and management of elementary school children referred with LiD.

Auditory processing disorder: an online survey of hearing healthcare professionals' knowledge and practices

OBJECTIVE

To investigate (1) the current level of awareness and knowledge on Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) among Audiologists and other hearing healthcare professionals; (2) current practices in screening, diagnosis, and management of APD in children and adults across the UK; (3) professional's acceptance of APD assessment and diagnosis.

DESIGN

An online survey was disseminated through the British Academy of Audiology and ENT UK.

STUDY SAMPLE

A total of 191 hearing healthcare professionals responded to the survey.

RESULTS

Overall, while 63% of the respondents considered themselves to be adequately informed about APD, only 4% viewed themselves as very informed on the topic. Fewer than half of the respondents report screening (31%), diagnosing (14%), or managing (36%) cases of APD. For screening APD, professionals most commonly use auditory processing tests in adults and take case histories in children, whereas routine audiological procedures are the primary method for diagnosing APD in both adults and children. Although modifying the listening environment is a widely recommended management strategy for APD, half of the respondents indicated that a diagnosis of APD has no implications for patient management.

CONCLUSIONS

There is a critical need to promote APD-related training to ensure they can provide appropriate referrals and management.

Visual Processing Impairment in Children With Suspected Auditory Processing Disorder: A Transdisciplinary Dimensional Approach to Diagnosis

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study is to explore the utility of impairment(s) in language (LI), manual dexterity (IMD), and visual perceptual skills (IVPS) as a reference standard for diagnosing auditory processing disorder (APD).

METHOD

Data from 104 participants with suspected APD (males = 57, females = 47; 6-16 years) were retrospectively analyzed. Index auditory processing (AP) tests included Auditory Figure Ground 0 dB, Competing Words-Directed Ear (CW-DE), and Time-Compressed Sentences (TCS). General Communication Composite (GCC) of the Children's Communication Checklist-2, manual dexterity (MD) component of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children-Second Edition, and Test for Visual Perceptual Skills-Third Edition (TVPS-3) were used to identify LI, IMD, and IVPS, respectively.

RESULTS

Eighty-one (77.8%), 58 (55.8%), and 37 (35.6%) participants had LI, IVPS, and IMD, respectively. Four factors explaining 67.69% of the variance were extracted. TVPS-3 (except visual closure [VClo]) represented the first; AFG 0, VClo, and MD the second; CW-DE and GCC the third; and TCS the fourth. APD diagnosed by combining AP tests and comorbidities had better accuracy compared to AP tests alone. The combined approach had overall diagnostic accuracy of 92.2%, 88.4%, and 81.7% for the 9th, 5th, and 2nd percentile AP test cutoffs, respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

First-order AP tests in this study were related to language, MD, and visual perceptual skills. Given the overlap of LI, IMD, and IVPS with impaired AP, these comorbidities are an effective reference standard for APD. APD can be diagnosed following failing one AP test if one or more comorbidities exist. Ninth percentile AP test cutoff had better diagnostic accuracy compared to the currently used 2nd percentile cutoff.

Auditory Processing Disorder and Its Comorbidities: A Need for Consistency in Test Cutoff Scores

Purpose No gold standard criteria exist for diagnosing developmental auditory processing disorder (APD). This study aimed to identify APD criteria, which are consistent with that used for comorbidities, and how comorbidities predicted APD. Method A retrospective study of 167 participants (males = 105, females = 62; age: 6-16 years; nonverbal IQ > 80) with suspected APD is presented. Five SCAN-3 tests evaluated auditory processing (AP). Comorbidities included attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, language impairment, and impaired manual dexterity, which were identified using percentile ≤ 5 in the Swanson, Nolan and Pelham parental rating scale; Children's Communication Checklist-2; and Movement Assessment Battery for Children-2, respectively. Results Percentiles ≤ 9, ≤ 5, and < 2 in two or more AP tests had sensitivities (specificities) of 76% (70.6%), 59.3% (76.5%), and 26% (82.4%), respectively, in predicting comorbidities, which were present in 150 of the 167 participants. The criterion of "≤ 9 percentile in two or more AP tests" (Approach I) diagnosed APD in 119 participants, and criterion "≤ 5 percentile in two or more AP tests or ≤ 5 percentile in one AP plus one or more measures of comorbidities" (Approach II) diagnosed 123. The combination of approaches diagnosed 128 participants (76.6%) with APD, of which 114 were diagnosed by each approach (89%). Language impairment and impaired manual dexterity, but not attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, predicted APD. Conclusions "Percentile ≤ 9 in two or more AP tests" or "percentile ≤ 5 in one AP plus one or more measures of comorbidities" are evidence-based APD diagnostic criteria. Holistic and interprofessional practice evaluating comorbidities including motor skills is important for APD.