Manual dexterity and outcomes in a commonly used test battery to assess auditory processing disorder (APD) in children

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.

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

OBJECTIVES

To evaluate the prevalence of sleep disturbance and its relationship with auditory processing (AP) and co-morbidities in children diagnosed with auditory processing disorder (APD).

METHODS

Data from 109 children (Males = 59, Females = 50) with mean non-verbal intelligence quotient (NVIQ) of 89.44 (SD:18.16), aged between 6 and 16 years (mean: 10 years 7 months; SD: 2 years 9 months) with a diagnosis of APD were analysed. Participants performed ≤1.33 SD below the mean in two or more out of five SCAN-3 diagnostic APD tests that included 'Filtered Words' (FW), 'Auditory Figure Ground 0 dB' (AFG0), 'Competing Words-Directed Ear' (CW-DE), 'Competing Sentences' (CS) and 'Time Compressed Sentences' (TCS). Concern about sleep in addition to other symptoms and medical history were documented from structured parental history sheet which forms part of the routine APD assessment. Language impairment (LI), attention-deficit-hyperactivity-disorder (ADHD) and oppositional defiant disorder (ODD), and anxiety were evaluated using the 'Children's Communication Checklist-2' (CCC-2), 'Swanson Nolan and Pelham rating scale' (SNAP-IV) and 'Anxiety Scale for Children-Autism Spectrum Disorder' (ASC-ASD) respectively.

RESULTS

Sixty children had sleep disturbance, a prevalence of 55% (95% CI 45.2%-64.6%). The two groups of APD children, with (n = 49) and without sleep (n = 60) disturbance, did not vary in their auditory processing abilities. The sleep disturbed group had significant issues with pragmatic language impairment, hyperactivity/impulsivity, oppositional defiant symptoms and anxiety compared to the group without sleep disturbance when they were analysed separately. After the variables were considered in step wise fashion in binary logistic regression analyses, only pragmatic language impairment and anxiety predicted sleep disturbance (p < .01).

CONCLUSION

In APD the prevalence of sleep disturbance is high, justifying screening within a transdisciplinary APD assessment protocol. Sleep disturbance in APD is predicted by pragmatic language impairment and anxiety, but not by ADHD symptoms or ODD.