Development and evaluation of the efficacy of Persian phonemic synthesis program in children with (central) auditory processing disorder: a single subject study

  • Samane Sadat Barootiyan Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Leyla Jalilvand Karimi Mail Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Shohreh Jalaie Biostatistics, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
  • Ehsan Negin Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
Keywords:
Central auditory processing disorders, decoding, phonemic synthesis program, learning disability

Abstract

Background and Aim: Central auditory processing disorder (C)APD can affect academic, social and communicative status of its patients whether children or adults. One of the most important skills involved in these disorders is decoding. The rehabilitation method for the decoding deficit in Buffalo auditory processing model is the phonemic synthesis program (PSP). In this study, the Persian version of PSP was developed and then the efficacy of this method in the rehabilitation of Persian children with (C)APD was evaluated.
Methods: This study was conducted in two stages. At first, the Persian version of PSP was prepared in accordance with its English version. Then, a child with (C)APD according to the results of Persian versions of Phonemic Synthesis Test (P-PST) and staggered spondaic words (P-SSW) was rehabilitated with this method. The treatment was given to the patient three sessions a week, each session lasted 30 minutes. Data were analyzed using visual analysis and non-parametric tests.
Results: During the treatment phase, a significant improvement was seen in P-PST and P-SSW test results (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Based on the study results, the Persian version of PSP improves decoding, tolerance fading memory, and organization disorders.

References

1. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (central) auditory processing disorders [Technical Report]. 2005. Available from www.asha.org/policy.
2. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Central auditory processing: current status of research and implications for clinical practice [Technical Report]. 1996. Available from www.asha.org/policy.
3. 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.
4. Keith R. Central auditory and language disorders: strategies for use with children. Houston: College-Hill Press; 1981.
5. 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.
6. Bellis TJ. Assesment and management of central auditory processing disorders in the educational setting: from science to practice. 1st ed. Clifton Park, NY: Cengage Learning; 1996.
7. Katz J. Therapy for auditory processing disorders: simple effective procedures. Denver, CO: Educational Audiology Association; 2009.
8. Katz J. Classification of auditory processing disorders. In: Katz J, Stecker NA, Henderson D, editors. Central auditory processing: a transdisciplinary view. St. Louis, MO: Mosby; 1992. p. 81-91.
9. Katz J. Phonemic training and phonemic synthesis programs. In: Geffner DS, Ross-Swain D, editors. Auditory processing disorders: assessment, management and treatment. 1st ed. San Diego: Plural Publishing; 2007. p. 255-65.
10. Bijankhan M, Mohseni M. Frequency dictionary according to a written corpus of today Persian language. 1st ed. Tehran: University of Tehran Press; 2012.
11. Waltz CF, Bausell RB. Nursing research: design, statistics, and computer analysis. Philadelphia: F. A. Davis; 1981.
12. Lawshe CH. A quantitative approach to content validity. Personnel psychology. 1975;28(4):563-75. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.1975.tb01393.x
13. Katz J. The SSW test: an interim report. J Speech Hear Disord. 1968;33(2):132-46. doi: 10.1044/jshd.3302.132
14. Olive ML, Franco JH. (Effect) size matters: and so does the calculation. Behav Anal Today. 2008;9(1):5-10. doi: 10.1037/h0100642
15. 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
16. Nourbakhsh MR, Ottenbacher KJ. The statistical analysis of single-subject data: a comparative examination. Phys Ther. 1994;74(8):768-76.
17. Scruggs TE, Mastropieri MA. How to summarize single participant research: Ideas and applications. Exceptionality. 2001;9(4):227-44. doi: 10.1207/S15327035EX0904_5
18. Scruggs TE, Mastropieri MA. Summarizing single-subject research. Issues and applications. Behav Modif. 1998;22(3):221-42. doi: 10.1177/01454455980223001
Published
2018-05-22
How to Cite
1.
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 Vestib Res. 27(2):101-110.
Section
Research Article(s)