Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(07): 656-667
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.17053
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Measuring Perceptions of Classroom Listening in Typically Developing Children and Children with Auditory Difficulties Using the LIFE-UK Questionnaire

Suzanne C. Purdy
*   Speech Science, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand
,
Mridula Sharma
†   Department of Linguistics, Macquarie University, New South Wales, Australia
‡   The HEARing CRC, Hearing and Speech Sciences, The University of Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
,
Amanda Morgan
§   Speech Therapy, Auckland, New Zealand
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 May 2020 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Classrooms can be noisy and are challenging listening environments for children with auditory processing disorder (APD). This research was undertaken to determine if the Listening Inventory for Education-UK version (LIFE-UK) can differentiate children with listening difficulties and APD from their typically developing peers.

Purpose:

To investigate reliability and validity of the student and teacher versions LIFE-UK questionnaire for assessing classroom listening difficulties.

Research Design:

Cross-sectional quantitative study comparing children with listening difficulties with typically developing children.

Study Sample:

In total, 143 children (7–12 yr) participated; 45 were diagnosed with APD. Fifteen participants with reported listening difficulties who passed the APD test battery were assigned to a “listening difficulty” (LiD) group. Eighty three children from nine classrooms formed a Control group.

Data Collection and Analysis:

Children and teachers completed the LIFE-UK questionnaire student and teacher versions. Factor analysis was undertaken, and item reliability was assessed using Cronbach’s alpha. Teacher and student ratings were compared using Spearman correlations. Correlations between LIFE-UK ratings and APD test results were also investigated.

Results:

Factor analysis revealed three factors accounting for 60% of the variance in the Control group LIFE-UK ratings. After removing six items with low factor loadings, a shortened seven-item version with three factors accounted for 71.8% of the variance for the student questionnaire; Cronbach’s alpha indicated good internal reliability for this seven-item version of the student questionnaire. Factors were also derived for the teacher questionnaire. Teacher and student ratings were correlated when participant groups were combined. LIFE-UK ratings correlated weakly with some APD measures, providing some support for the questionnaire validity.

Conclusions:

The results support the use of either the 13- or 7-item student and the teacher versions of the LIFE-UK to evaluate classroom listening and functional consequences of APD. Factor analysis resulted in groupings of items reflecting differences in listening demands in quiet versus noise for the student questionnaire and attentional versus class participation demands for the teacher questionnaire. Further research is needed to confirm the robustness of these factors in other populations.

Key Words

APD - auditory processing - child ratings - classroom listening - LIFE-UK - questionnaire - self-rating scales - teacher ratings
 

  • REFERENCES

  • Aithal V, Yonovitz A, Aithal S. 2006; Tonal masking level differences in Aboriginal children: Implications for binaural interaction, auditory processing disorders and education. Aust N Z J Audiol 28 (01) 31-40
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • American Speech Language Hearing Association (ASHA) 2005 Acoustics in educational settings: Technical report
    PubMed
  • Anderson K, Smaldino J, Spangler C. 2011 Listening Inventory for Education–Revised Retrieved from http://successforkidswithhearingloss.com/life-r
    PubMed
  • Anderson K, Matkin NH. 1989. Screening Instrument for Targeting Educational Risk (SIFTER). Tampa, FL: Educational Audiology Association;
    Google Scholar
  • Anderson KL, Smaldino J. 1998. Listening Inventory for Education. Tampa, FL: Educational Audiology Association;
    Google Scholar
  • Arlinger SD. 2001; How to assess outcome of hearing aid fitting in children. Scand Audiol Suppl 30 (53) 68-72
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bailey PJ, Snowling MJ. 2002; Auditory processing and the development of language and literacy. Br Med Bull 63 (01) 135-146
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Barry JG, Tomlin D, Moore DR, Dillon H. 2015; Use of questionnaire-based measures in the assessment of listening difficulties in school-aged children. Ear Hear 36 (06) e300-e313
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bishop DV, McDonald D. 2009; Identifying language impairment in children: combining language test scores with parental report. Int J Lang Commun Disord 44 (05) 600-615
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Brown L, Sherbenou R, Johnsen SK. 1988. Test of Nonverbal Intelligence. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed;
    Google Scholar
  • Cameron S, Dillon H. 2007; Development of the listening in spatialized noise-sentences test (LISN-S). Ear Hear 28 (02) 196-211
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Canning D. 1999. Listening Inventories For Education UK. London, UK: LIFE UK, City University;
    Google Scholar
  • Chermak GD, Musiek FE. 2002; Auditory training: principles and approaches for remediating and managing auditory processing disorders. Semin Hear 23 (04) 297-308
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • Crandell CC, Kreisman BM, Smaldino JJ, Kreisman NV. 2004; Room acoustics intervention efficacy measures. Semin Hear 25 (02) 201-206
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • Crandell CC, Smaldino JJ, Flexer CA. 2005. Sound Field Amplification: Applications to Speech Perception and Classroom Acoustics. Clifton Park, NY: Thomson-Del-mar Learning;
    Google Scholar
  • Dhamani I, Leung J, Carlile S, Sharma M. Switch attention to listen. 2013 Sci Rep 3:1297. http://www.nature.com/srep/2013/130218/srep01297/abs/srep01297.html#supplementary-information . Accessed September 19, 2014
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Dockrell JE, Shield B. 2004; Children’s perceptions of their acoustic environment at school and at home. J Acoust Soc Am 115 (06) 2964-2973
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Dockrell JE, Shield B. 2012; The impact of sound-field systems on learning and attention in elementary school classrooms. J Speech Lang Hear Res 55 (04) 1163-1176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Fisher L. 1976. Fisher’s Auditory Problems Checklist. Bemidji, MN: Life Products;
    Google Scholar
  • Gyldenkærne P, Dillon H, Sharma M, Purdy SC. 2014; Attend to this: the relationship between auditory processing disorders and attention deficits. J Am Acad Audiol 25 (07) 676-687 , quiz 706–707
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Hutchinson KM, Mauer DM. 1999; Targeting academic success: an interdisciplinary assessment program for children with central auditory processing deficits. Volta Rev 100 (04) 235-259
    Google Scholar
  • Keith R. 2000. RGDT-Random Gap Detection Test. St. Louis, MO: Auditec;
    Google Scholar
  • Kelly A. 2007; Normative data for behavioural tests of auditory processing for New Zealand school children aged 7 to 12 years. Aust NZ J Audiol 29 (01) 60
    Google Scholar
  • Kreisman B, Crandell C, Smaldino J, Kreisman N. 2005; Measuring efficacy of sound field placement. Sound Field Amplification: Applications to Speech Perception and Classroom Acoustics 192-217
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • McSporran E, Butterworth Y, Rowson VJ. 1997; Sound field amplification and listening behaviour in the classroom. Br Educ Res J 23 (01) 81-96
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Moncrieff D, Keith W, Abramson M, Swann A. 2016; Diagnosis of amblyaudia in children referred for auditory processing assessment. Int J Audiol 55 (06) 333-345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Moore DR. 2012; Listening difficulties in children: bottom-up and top-down contributions. J Commun Disord 45 (06) 411-418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Moore DR, Ferguson MA, Edmondson-Jones AM, Ratib S, Riley A. 2010; Nature of auditory processing disorder in children. Pediatrics 126 (02) e382-e390
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Musiek FE. 1983; Assessment of central auditory dysfunction: the dichotic digit test revisited. Ear Hear 4 (02) 79-83
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Noffsinger D, Wilson RH, Musiek FE. 1994; Department of Veterans Affairs compact disc recording for auditory perceptual assessment: background and introduction. J Am Acad Audiol 5 (04) 231-235
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Palmer CV. 1998; Quantification of the ecobehavioral impact of a soundfield loudspeaker system in elementary classrooms. J Speech Lang Hear Res 41 (04) 819-833
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Picard M, Bradley JS. 2001; Revisiting speech interference in classrooms. Audiology 40 (05) 221-244
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Pring T. 2005. Research Methods in Communication Disorders. Hoboken, NY: John Wiley & Sons Incorporated;
    Google Scholar
  • Purdy SC, Kelly AS, Davies MG. 2002; Auditory brainstem response, middle latency response, and late cortical evoked potentials in children with learning disabilities. J Am Acad Audiol 13 (07) 367-382
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Purdy SC, Smart JL, Baily M, Sharma M. 2009; Do children with reading delay benefit from the use of personal FM systems in the classroom?. Int J Audiol 48 (12) 843-852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Putter-Katz H, Said LA-B, Feldman I, Miran D, Kushnir D, Muchnik C, Hildesheimer M. 2002; Treatment and evaluation indices of auditory processing disorders. Semin Hear 23 (04) 357-364
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • Rosenberg GG, Blake-Rahter P, Heavner J, Allen L, Redmond BM, Phillips J, Stigers K. 1999; Improving classroom acoustics (ICA): a three-year FM sound field classroom amplification study. J Educ Audiol 7: 8-28
    Google Scholar
  • Sandford J, Turner A. 1995. Manual for the integrated visual and auditory continuous performance test. Richmond, VA: Braintrain;
    Google Scholar
  • Sanes DH, Woolley SM. 2011; A behavioral framework to guide research on central auditory development and plasticity. Neuron 72 (06) 912-929
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sanger DD, Keith RW, Maher BA. 1987; An assessment technique for children with auditory-language processing problems. J Commun Disord 20 (04) 265-279
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Semel E, Wiig EH, Secord WA. 2003. Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals, fourth edition (CELF-4). Toronto, Canada: The Psychological Corporation/A Harcourt Assessment Company;
    Google Scholar
  • Sharma M, Dhamani I, Leung J, Carlile S. 2014; Attention, memory, and auditory processing in 10- to 15-year-old children with listening difficulties. J Speech Lang Hear Res 57 (06) 2308-2321
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sharma M, Purdy SC, Kelly AS. 2009; Comorbidity of auditory processing, language, and reading disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res 52 (03) 706-722
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Sharma M, Purdy SC, Kelly AS. 2012; A randomized control trial of interventions in school-aged children with auditory processing disorders. Int J Audiol 51 (07) 506-518
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shield B, Dockrell JE. 2004; External and internal noise surveys of London primary schools. J Acoust Soc Am 115 (02) 730-738
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Shield BM, Dockrell JE. 2008; The effects of environmental and classroom noise on the academic attainments of primary school children. J Acoust Soc Am 123 (01) 133-144
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Smaldino JJ, Doggett F, Thunder T. 2004; The complimentary roles of audiologists and acoustic consultants in solving classroom acoustic problems. Semin Hear 25 (02) 179-188
    Article in Thieme ConnectGoogle Scholar
  • Smaldino JJ, Flexer CA. 2012. Handbook of Acoustic Accessibility: Best Practices for Listening, Learning, and Literacy in the Classroom. New York, NY: Thieme;
    Google Scholar
  • Smoski WJ. 1990; Use of CHAPPS in a children’s audiology clinic. Ear Hear 11 (05) (Suppl) 53S-56S
    Google Scholar
  • Smoski WJ, Brunt MA, Tannahill JC. 1992; Listening characteristics of children with central auditory processing disorders. Lang Speech Hear Serv Schools 23 (02) 145-152
    Google Scholar
  • Stephenson M. 2007 The Effect of Classroom Sound Field Amplification and the Effectiveness of Otoacoustic Emission Hearing Screening in School-age Children: New Zealand Health Technology Assessment. Department of Public Health and General Practice, Christchurch School of Medicine and Health Sciences.
    PubMed
  • Strange A, Zalewski T, Waibel-Duncan M. 2009; Exploring the usefulness of fisher’s auditory problems checklist as a screening tool in relationship to the buffalo model diagnostic central auditory processing test battery. J Educ Audiol 15: 44
    Google Scholar
  • Sweetow RW, Reddell RC. 1978; The use of masking level differences in the identification of children with perceptual problems. J Am Aud Soc 4 (02) 52-56
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Tomlin D, Dillon H, Sharma M, Rance G. 2015; The impact of auditory processing and cognitive abilities in children. Ear Hear 36 (05) 527-542
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wilson WJ, Jackson A, Pender A, Rose C, Wilson J, Heine C, Khan A. 2011; The CHAPS, SIFTER, and TAPS-R as predictors of (C)AP skills and (C)APD. J Speech Lang Hear Res 54 (01) 278-291
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar