Efficacy of phonemic training program in rehabilitation of Persian-speaking children with auditory processing disorder: a single subject study
Background and Aim: One of the most prevalent problems in auditory processing disorder (APD) is in decoding. This problem is at the phonemic level and can difficulties in spelling, reading, speech processing disorder, responding delay, phonemic identification, memory, and manipulation. One of the training approaches for decoding problems is the phonemic training program. Considering high prevalence of decoding problems and lack of evaluation of the Persian version of the phonemic training program, this study investigated its efficacy in a child with APD.
Methods: This is a single-subject interventional study. A child with APD was selected and evaluated with Persian version of Phonemic Synthesis Test and staggered spondee words test at baseline, training, and monitoring phase. Data were analyzed by single-subject study statistics.
Results: All results showed absolute efficacy of the training.
Conclusion: The phonemic training program was effective in a child with auditory processing disorder.
2. Katz J. Therapy for auditory processing disorders: simple effective procedures. Denver, CO: Educational Audiology Association; 2009.
3. Bellis TJ, Bellis JD. Central auditory processing disorders in children and adults. Handb Clin Neurol. 2015;129:537-56. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-62630-1.00030-5
4. Geffner D. Central auditory processing disorders: definition, description and behaviors. In: Geffner D, Ross-Swain D, editor. Auditory processing disorders: assessment, management and treatment. 1st ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing; 2007. p. 25-48.
5. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (central) auditory processing disorders [Technical Report]. 2005. Available from www.asha.org/policy.
6. Keith R. Central auditory and language disorders: strategies for use with children. Houston: College-Hill Press; 1981.
7. Rees N. Saying more than we know: is auditory processing disorder a meaningful concept? In: R Keith, editor. Central auditory and language disorders in children. Houston: College-Hill; 1981. p. 94-120.
8. Bellis TJ. Assessment and management of central auditory processing disorders in the educational setting: from science to practice. 1st ed. Clifton Park, NY: Cengage Learning; 1996.
9. Lenz AS. Calculating effect size in single-case research: a comparison of nonoverlap methods. Meas Eval Couns Dev. 2013;46(1):64-73. doi: 10.1177/0748175612456401
10. Scruggs TE, Mastropieri MA. Summarizing single-subject research. Issues and applications. Behav Modif. 1998;22(3):221-42. doi: 10.1177/01454455980223001
11. Olive ML, Franco JH. (Effect) size matters: and so does the calculation. Behav Anal Today. 2008;9(1):5-10. doi: 10.1037/h0100642
12. Nourbakhsh MR, Ottenbacher KJ. The statistical analysis of single-subject data: a comparative examination. Phys Ther. 1994;74(8):768-76. doi: 10.1093/ptj/74.8.768
13. Luria AR. Traumatic aphasia: its syndromes, psychology and treatment. The Hague: Mouton and Co; 1970.
|Issue||Vol 27 No 3 (2018)|
|Auditory processing disorder phonemic training program decoding auditory processing disorder training|
|Rights and permissions|
|This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.|