Background: The presence of auditory processing disorder in school-age children has been documented (Katz and Wilde, 1985; Chermak and Musiek, 1997; Jerger and Musiek, 2000; Muthuselvi and Yathiraj, 2009). In order to identify these children early, there is a need for a screening test that is not very time-consuming.
Purpose: The present study aimed to evaluate the independence of four subsections of the Screening Test for Auditory Processing (STAP) developed by Yathiraj and Maggu (2012). The test was designed to address auditory separation/closure, binaural integration, temporal resolution, and auditory memory in school-age children. The study also aimed to examine the number of children who are at risk for different auditory processes.
Research Design: Factor analysis research design was used in the current study.
Study Sample: Four hundred school-age children consisting of 218 males and 182 females were randomly selected from 2400 children attending three schools. The children, aged 8 to 13 yr, were in grade three to eight class placements.
Data Collection and Analyses: The children were evaluated on the four subsections of the STAP (speech perception in noise, dichotic consonant-vowel [CV], gap detection, and auditory memory) in a quiet room within their school. The responses were analyzed using principal component analysis (PCA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). In addition, the data were also analyzed to determine the number of children who were at risk for an auditory processing disorder (APD).
Results: Based on the PCA, three components with Eigen values greater than 1 were extracted. The orthogonal rotation of the variables using the Varimax technique revealed that component 1 consisted of binaural integration, component 2 consisted of temporal resolution, and component 3 was shared by auditory separation/closure and auditory memory. These findings were confirmed using CFA, where the predicted model displayed a good fit with or without the inclusion of the auditory memory subsection. It was determined that 16% of the children were at risk for APD on one or more of the subsections of STAP. Among these 16%, the auditory memory subsection was the most affected (73.4%), followed by binaural integration (65.6%), auditory separation/closure (59.4%), and temporal resolution (53.1%).
Conclusion: The current study revealed that the four subsections of STAP merged to form three distinct components. Dichotic CV and gap detection formed two independent components while speech perception in noise and auditory memory merged to form a single component. This indicates a possible relationship between auditory memory and speech perception in noise as suggested by Katz (1992). Thus, STAP is able to detect three different components related to auditory processing. The study also indicates that the number of children at risk for each of the different auditory processes vary. Ongoing evaluation will shed light on the usefulness of the subsections of STAP in identifying auditory processing problems. In addition to conducting the APD screening test, it is also recommended that a hearing screening be done to rule out peripheral hearing problems when hearing screening programs are not conducted in schools.
Key Words
Auditory memory - auditory processing disorders - auditory separation/closure - binaural integration - screening - temporal resolution
