An initial investigation into the validity of a computer-based auditory processing assessment (Feather Squadron)

References

• Ahmmed A.U., Ahmmed A.A., Bath J.R., Ferguson M.A., Plack C.J. et al. 2014. Assessment of children with suspected auditory processing disorder: A factor analysis study. Ear Hear, 35(3), 295–305.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• American Academy of Audiology. 2010. Clinical Practice Guidelines. Guidelines for the Diagnosis, Treatment and Management of Children and Adults with Central Auditory Processing Disorder. Retrieved from www.audiology.org/resources
   Google Scholar
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 2000. Audiology Survey - 2000 edition Frequency Report. Retrieved from www.asha.org/UploadedFiles/research
   Google Scholar
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 2005. (Central) Auditory Processing Disorders – The Role of the Audiologist (Position statement). Retrieved from www.asha.org/policy
   Google Scholar
• American National Standards Institute. 2002. S12.60-2002, Acoustical Performance Criteria, Design Requirements, and Guidelines for Schools. Melville, USA: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Bellis T.J. 2003. Assessment and Management of Central Auditory Processing Disorders in The Educational Setting: From Science to Practice (2nd ed.). New York: Delmar Learning.
   Google Scholar
• Cowan J.A. 2006. Auditory Processing Disorder in Children (unpublished Ph.D. thesis). University of Nottingham, UK.
   Google Scholar
• Chermak G.D. & Musiek F.E. 1997. Central Auditory Processing Disorders: New Perspectives. San Diego, USA: Singular Publishing Group.
   Google Scholar
• Dillon H., Cameron S., Glyde H., Wilson W. & Tomlin T. 2012. An opinion on the assessment of people who may have an auditory processing disorder. J Am Acad Audiol, 23, 97–105.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Domitz D.M. & Schow R.L. 2000. A new CAPD battery: Multiple auditory processing assessment: Factor analysis and comparisons with SCAN. American Journal of Audiology, 9, 101–111.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Guenette L.A. 2006. How to administer the Dichotic Digit Test. The Hearing Journal, 59(2), 50.
   Google Scholar
• Kay F. 2013. APD questionnaire report completed March 2013. New Zealand Audiological Society Bulletin, 23(2), 25–33.
   Google Scholar
• Kelly A. 2007. Normative data for behavioural tests of auditory processing for New Zealand school children aged 7 to 12 years. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Audiology, 29(1), 60–64.
   Google Scholar
• Killion M.C., Niquette P.A., Gudmundsen G.I., Revit L.J. & Banerjee S. 2004. Development of a quick speech-in-noise test for measuring signal-to-noise ratio loss in normal-hearing and hearing-impaired listeners. J Acoust Soc Am, 116(4), 2395–2405.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kong K. & Coates H.L.C. 2009. Natural history, definitions, risk factors and burden of otitis media. Medical Journal of Australia, 191(9), S39–S43.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mukaka M.M. 2012. Statistics corner: A guide to appropriate use of correlation coefficient in medical research. Malawi Medical Journal, 24(3), 69–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Musiek F.E. 1983. Assessment of central auditory dysfunction: the dichotic digit test revisited. Ear Hear, 4(2), 79–83.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Musiek F.E., Chermak G.D., Weihing J., Zappulla M. & Nagle S. 2011. Diagnostic accuracy of established central auditory processing test batteries in patients with documented brain lesions. J Am Acad Audio, 22, 342–358.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Musiek F.E. 2002. The frequency pattern test: A guide. The Hearing Journal, 55(6), 58.
   Google Scholar
• New Zealand Ministry of Education. 2007. Design Quality Learning Spaces: Acoustics. New Zealand: Branz, Ltd. Available at http://www.minedu.govt.nz/∼/media/MinEdu/Files/EducationSectors/PrimarySecondary/PropertyToolbox/ModernLearning/AcousticsGuide.pdf [accessed: March 31, 2015].
   Google Scholar
• Neijenhuis K., Tschur H. & Snik A. 2004. The effect of mild hearing impairment on auditory processing tests. J Am Acad Audiol, 15(1), 6–16.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Nittrouer S. 1996. The relation between speech perception and phonemic awareness: Evidence from low-SES children and children with chronic OM. J Sp Hear Res, 39, 1059–1070.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Pinheiro M.L. & Musiek F.E. 1985. Sequencing and temporal ordering in the auditory system. In: M.L. Pinheiro & F.E. Musiek (eds.), Assessment of Central Auditory Dysfunction: Foundations and Clinical Correlates. Baltimore, USA: Williams & Wilkins, pp. 219–238.
   Google Scholar
• Rickard N.A., Heidtke U.J. & O’Beirne G.A. 2013a. Assessment of auditory processing disorder in children using an adaptive filtered speech test. Int J Audiol, 52(10), 687–697.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rickard N.A., Smales C.J. & Rickard K.L. 2013b. A computer-based auditory sequential pattern test for school-aged children. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology. Available at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2013.02.024
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosen S. 2003. Auditory processing in dyslexia and specific language impairment: Is there a deficit? What is its nature? Does it explain anything? Journal of Phonetics, 31, 509–527.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schow R.L. & Chermak G. 1999. Implications from factor analysis for central auditory processing disorders. American Journal of Audiology, 8(2), 137–142.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Sharma M., Purdy C.S. & Kelly A.S. 2009. Comorbidity of auditory processing, language, and reading disorders. J Sp Lang Hear Res, 52, 706–722.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Turkstra L., Ylvisaker M., Coelho C., Kennedy M., Sohlberg M.M. et al. 2005. Practice guidelines for standardized assessment for persons with traumatic brain injury. Journal of Medical Speech-Language Pathology, 13(2), 9–38.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson R.H., Preece J.P., Salamon D.L., Sperry J.L. & Bornstein S.P. 1994. Effects of time compression and time compression plus reverberation on the intelligibility of Northwestern University Auditory Test No. 6. J Am Acad Audiol, 5(4), 269–277.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar