Effectiveness of Central Auditory Processing Tests With Children The purpose of this investigation was to determine central auditory processing (CAP) individual test efficacy and test battery efficacy and to estimate the costs that are associated with the identification of a targeted sample. Ninety-one children with normal learning (NL) abilities and 147 children with a classroom learning disability (CLD) ... Research Article
Research Article  |   October 01, 1998
Effectiveness of Central Auditory Processing Tests With Children
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Jay Singer
    University of Rhode Island, Kingston
  • Raymond M. Hurley, PhD
    Department of Communication Disorders, LSU Medical Center, 1900 Gravier Street, New Orleans, LA 70112
  • John P. Preece
    University of Rhode Island, Kingston
  • Corresponding author: e-mail: rhurle@lsumc.edu
Article Information
Hearing & Speech Perception / Hearing Disorders / School-Based Settings / Language Disorders / Research Articles
Research Article   |   October 01, 1998
Effectiveness of Central Auditory Processing Tests With Children
American Journal of Audiology, October 1998, Vol. 7, 73-84. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(1998/015)
History: Received August 7, 1996 , Accepted March 12, 1998
 
American Journal of Audiology, October 1998, Vol. 7, 73-84. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(1998/015)
History: Received August 7, 1996; Accepted March 12, 1998

The purpose of this investigation was to determine central auditory processing (CAP) individual test efficacy and test battery efficacy and to estimate the costs that are associated with the identification of a targeted sample. Ninety-one children with normal learning (NL) abilities and 147 children with a classroom learning disability (CLD) and presumed CAP disorders (CAPDs) ranging in age from 7 to 13 years were given a battery of seven CAP tests. The test battery consisted of: (1) Binaural Fusion Test (BFT), (2) Masking Level Difference (MLD) test, (3) Filtered Speech Test (FST), (4) Time Compressed Speech (TCS) test, (5) Dichotic Digits Test (DDT), (6) Staggered Spondaic Word (SSW) test, and (7) Pitch Pattern Test (PPT).

We believe that this investigation is the first report regarding the assessment of the utility of CAP tests using clinical decision analysis (CDA). We determined that the BFT separated the two samples most effectively and that the FST was the next most effective. A test protocol with BFT and FST or BFT and MLD represented the best battery approach when hit rate, false positive rate, and cost factors were considered. However, if the intent is to be certain that a child with CLD has CAPD given a positive test result, then the BFT and MLD would be the test battery of choice.

Acknowledgment
We thank Margo Chiappinelli, Marsha Harris, and Elizabeth Kenney for their assistance in obtaining these data. Thank you to Martin C. Schultz for suggesting the type of data analysis, to Robert G. Turner for his consultations on clinical decision analysis, and to Barbara Cone-Wesson for her editorial assistance and guidance. Thank you to Elizabeth C. Connors for help with previous drafts of this paper.
This project was supported in part by grants from the Genesis Foundation, the Mary Dexter Chafee Fund, and the Vigernon Foundation. Raymond M. Hurley was associated with the Department of Communicative Disorders, The University of Rhode Island, during the data collection phase of this project.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Audiology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access