Background: Auditory processing disorder (APD) is a diagnosis that is widely discussed. Children diagnosed with APD have difficulty listening in complex situations, despite a well-functioning peripheral hearing. However, there seems to be no evidence for the validity of a purely auditory deficit. The aim of this study is to examine the differences in performance between children with suspected APD and typically developing children on tests of communication, auditory processing, nonverbal intelligence, working memory, and visual and auditory attention. Methods: In a case-control study we examined 9 children with suspected APD and 21 typically developing children, ages 8;0 to 12;0 years. The parents of all children completed three questionnaires about history, behavioral symptoms of ADHD, and communication skills. The teachers of the children completed the Children’s Auditory Processing Performance Scale (CHAPPS). The children themselves were assessed for auditory processing abilities, nonverbal intelligence, working memory, and auditory and visual attention. Results: No differences were found between groups in age, nonverbal intelligence quotient, and performance on auditory processing tests. Children with suspected APD have significantly poorer communication performance (parent report), poorer listening skills (teacher report), poorer working memory and poorer auditory and visual skills. Conclusion: There is a difference between children with suspected APD and typically developing children. Children with suspected APD perform insufficient on tests of working memory, and have a slower response to auditory and visual attention tasks. Parents of children with suspected APD report difficulties in communication and teachers assess the children of being at risk for listening difficulties.
DOCUMENT
Objective: To gain insight into how communication vulnerable people and health-care professionals experience the communication in dialogue conversations, and how they adjust their conversation using augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) or other communication strategies. Methods: Communication vulnerable clients and health-care professionals in a long-term care institution were observed during a dialogue conversation (n = 11) and subsequently interviewed (n = 22) about their experiences with the conversation. The clients had various communication difficulties due to different underlying aetiologies, such as acquired brain injury or learning disorder. Results from the observations and interviews were analysed using conventional content analysis. Results: Seven key themes emerged regarding the experiences of clients and professionals: clients blame themselves for miscommunications; the relevance of both parties preparing the conversation; a quiet and familiar environment benefitting communication; giving clients enough time; the importance and complexity of nonverbal communication; the need to tailor communication to the client; prejudices and inexperience regarding AAC. The observations showed that some professionals had difficulties using appropriate communication strategies and all professionals relied mostly on verbal or nonverbal communication strategies. Conclusion: Professionals were aware of the importance of preparation, sufficient time, a suitable environment and considering nonverbal communication in dialogue conversations. However, they struggled with adequate use of communication strategies, such as verbal communication and AAC. There is a lack of knowledge about AAC, and professionals and clients need to be informed about the potential of AAC and how this can help them achieve equal participation in dialogue conversations in addition to other communication strategies.
DOCUMENT
Background: Children with difficulties in listening and understanding speech despite normal peripheral hearing, can be diagnosed with the diagnosis Auditory Processing Disorder (A). However, there are doubts about the validity of this diagnosis. The aim of this study was to examine the relation between the listening difficulties of children between 8 and 12 years with suspected A and the attention, working memory, nonverbal intelligence and communication abilities of these children.Material and methods: In this case-control study we examined 10 children who reported listening difficulties in spite of normal peripheral hearing (3 referred by speech-language pathologist in the Northern Netherlands, 6 by an audiological center in the Southern Netherlands and one by parental concern) and 21 typically developing children (recruitment through word of mouth and by the website Taalexpert.nl), ages 8;0 to 12;0 years. The parents of all children completed three questionnaires about history, behavioral symptoms of ADHD, and communication skills (Children’s Communication Checklist). Teachers of the children completed the Children’s Auditory Processing Performance Scale (CHAPPS). Children were assessed for auditory processing abilities (speech-in-noise, filtered speech, binaural fusion, dichotic listening), nonverbal intelligence (Raven’s Coloured Progressive Matrices), and working memory (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals). Auditory and visual attention was studied with four behavioral tests of the WAFF battery of the Vienna Test System (Schuhfried).Results: Preliminary analysis shows no differences between groups on the auditory processing tests and nonverbal intelligence quotient. Children in the experimental group have poorer communication performance (parent report), poorer listening skills (teacher report), and poorer working memory and attention skills (behavioral tests).Conclusions: The results of this study showed that there is a difference between children with listening complaints and typically developing children, but that the problems are not specific to the auditory modality. There seems to be no evidence for the validity of an auditory deficit.
DOCUMENT
