Development and evaluation of a computer-based auditory training program for rehabilitation of children with decoding deficit
Background and Aim: Decoding deficit is the most common central auditory processing disorder (CAPD). Given the benefits of computer-based auditory training programs for treatment of central disorders and the lack of such programs in Persian language, this study aimed to develop a computer-based auditory training program for decoding skill. We also evaluated this program in 8 to12 year old children with CAPD.
Methods: The first stage of research was to develop a computer-based auditory training program. This program consists of three levels of phonological discrimination, syllable discrimination, and word discrimination. The second stage was to determine the content and face validity of the program. The third stage was to assess the program effect on five children with decoding deficit. The research method was interventional and had a pretest and post-test design with another five children as control group. The staggered spondaic word, phonemic synthesis (PS) and speech in noise tests was used to assess the children performance before and after training.
Results: Mean scores of staggered spondaic word (SSW) and PS tests of the experimental group were significantly difference before and after the auditory training (p<0.05) as compared to control group. However, there was no significant difference with regard to the speech-in-noise test results (p>0.05).
Conclusion: This computer-based auditory training program can be considered as a preliminary tool for the rehabilitation and treatment of decoding deficits in children with CAPD.
2. Tillery KA. Central auditory processing evaluation: a test battery approach. In: Katz J, Medwetsky L, Burkard R, Hood LJ, editors. Handbook of clinical audiology. 6th ed. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2009. p. 627-41.
3. Katz J. The Buffalo CAPD Model: The importance of phonemes in evaluation and remediation. J Phonet and Audiol. 2016;2(1):111. doi: 10.4172/2471-9455.1000111
4. Weihing J, Chermak GD, Musiek FE. Auditory training for central auditory processing disorder. Semin Hear. 2015;36(4):199-215. doi: 10.1055/s-0035-1564458
5. Musiek FE, Shinn J, Hare C. Plasticity, auditory training, and auditory processing disorders. Semin Hear. 2002;23(4):263-76. doi: 10.1055/s-2002-35862
6. Bellis TJ, Anzalone AM. Intervention approaches for individuals with (central) auditory processing disorder. Contemp Issues Commun Sci Disord. 2008;35:143-53.
7. Chermak GD, Musiek FE. Central auditory processing disorders: new perspectives. 1st ed. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group, Inc; 1997.
8. Loo JH, Bamiou DE, Campbell N, Luxon LM. Computer-based auditory training (CBAT): benefits for children with language- and reading-related learning difficulties. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2010;52(8):708-17. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.03654.x
9. Barootiyan SS, Jalilvand Karimi L, Jalaie S, Negin E. Development and evaluation of the efficacy of Persian phonemic synthesis program in children with (central) auditory processing disorder: a single subject study. Aud Vest Res. 2018;27(2):101-10.
10. Hajiabolhassan F, Lotfi Y, Azordegan F. [Introducing and evaluating a Farsi - language version of the staggered spondaic word test in normal hearing subject]. Audiol. 2006;15(1):39-46. Persian.
11. Amiriani F, Tahaei A, Kamali M. [Comparative evaluation of auditory attention in 7 to 9 year old learning disabled students]. Audiol. 2011;20(1):54-63. Persian.
12. Battin R, Young M, Burns M. Use of Fast Forword in remediation of central auditory processing disorders. Audiology today. 2000;12(2).
13. Tallal P. Fast ForWord®: the birth of the neurocognitive training revolution. Prog Brain Res. 2013;207:175-207. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-63327-9.00006-0
14. Ugwuanyi LT, Adaka TA. Effect of auditory training on reading comprehension of children with hearing impairment in Enugu state. Int J Spec Educ. 2015;30(1):58-63.
15. Diehl SF. Listen and earn? A software review of Earobics®. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 1999;30(1):108-16. doi: 10.1044/0161-1461.3001.108
16. Miller CA, Uhring EA, Brown JJC, Kowalski EM, Roberts B, Schaefer BA. Case studies of auditory training for children with auditory processing difficulties: a preliminary analysis. Contemp Issues Commun Sci Disord. 2005;32:93-107.
17. Krishnamurti S, Forrester J, Rutledge C, Holmes GW. A case study of the changes in the speech-evoked auditory brainstem response associated with auditory training in children with auditory processing disorders. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 2013;77(4):594-604. doi: 10.1016/j.ijporl.2012.12.032
Copyright (c) 2018 Auditory and Vestibular Research
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.