![]() One would expect around 16% of a random sample to score in this range. These proportions were not statistically significantly different (Fisher p=0.32). Using UK norms, 40% (10 of 25) of the APD group and 22% (four of 18) of the dyslexia group scored within the ‘borderline’ or ‘disordered’ range. Performance was then categorised as recommended in the SCAN manuals a composite standard score better than −1 SD is ‘normal,’ between −1 and −2 SD is ‘borderline,’ and lower than −2 SD is ‘disordered.’ ![]() 25 We therefore computed standard scores from our own UK norms (99 UK schoolchildren aged 6–10 for the SCAN-C and 11 adults for the SCAN-A). In an earlier study, we found UK children scored significantly worse than US norms on the SCAN-C. Prevalence of possible auditory processing problems was defined by SCAN test results. The proportion of abnormal and borderline cases combined was around 50% for both dyslexia and APD groups, not statistically significantly different from each other (Fisher p=1.00). The proportion of abnormal cases was 37% and 46% for the dyslexia and APD groups, respectively. 22 Around 10% of the general population would be expected to score in the ‘abnormal’ range, with an additional 10% in the ‘borderline’ range. Hyperactivity/inattention was identified using recommended cut-off scores for the parent-completed SDQ and classifications according to ‘normal,’ ‘borderline’ and ‘abnormal’ cases. The proportion of children who fit a diagnosis of SLI was not statistically significantly different between the APD group and the dyslexia group (Fisher p=0.36). A relatively high proportion of children in the dyslexia group would also fit a diagnosis of SLI (11 of 19, 58%). Around half (13 of 25, 52%) of APD children would also fit a diagnosis of either SLI, dyslexia or both. SLI was defined as a non-verbal IQ of 80 or better and performance on two or more out of six language tests (TROG, NEPSY sentence repetition, NEPSY non-word repetition, ERRNI storytelling, ERRNI MLU, ERRNI story comprehension) below −1 SD. ![]() Dyslexia criteria were as used for dyslexia group selection. Rates of dyslexia, SLI as well as attentional and auditory processing problems were examined in the APD and dyslexia groups. On the basis of our findings, a follow-up assessment focusing on a screening assessment of autistic features was conducted with a subset of children from both APD and dyslexia groups. During an initial assessment, all participating children completed a detailed psychometric battery comprising standardised assessment and parent report measures. 5 8 In this study, we focused on whether the psychometric profile of children with an APD diagnosis differed from that of children with dyslexia. 7 The significance of auditory processing difficulties is one that has been widely researched and remains controversial. ![]() 6 Note that auditory processing problems may co-occur with specific learning disabilities, and some have suggested that they may be causally related. In other words, an audiologist would diagnose APD in cases where an educational psychologist or speech therapist would diagnose dyslexia or specific language impairment (SLI). It has been suggested that the diagnosis a child receives is partly dependent on the professional who assesses them. 5 It has been suggested that APD is not a separate disorder but rather is a reflection of an attention deficit, a learning disability or a language disorder. There is, however, debate over the validity and reliability of commonly used APD assessments, definition of APD and possible misidentification of learning problems as APD. APD is widely diagnosed in the USA and Australia, 1 2 and is beginning to receive more attention in the UK 3 and elsewhere. The primary feature is difficulty hearing in background noise despite a normal audiogram. Auditory processing disorder (APD) is suspected when a child presents with unexplained listening difficulties.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |