Abstract
Objective
The aim of this study was to compare speech reception thresholds in noise measured with the Listening in Spatialised Noise – Universal test (LiSN-U; which requires no English knowledge) with those measured from the relevant conditions of the LiSN – Sentences test (LiSN-S; a test requiring knowledge of English) in Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children. A second aim was to compare the ability of the two tests to detect spatial processing disorder.
Design
Participants completed audiometry, the LiSN-S, and the LiSN-U.
Study sample
90 Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander children aged six to 14 years tested in a school setting.
Results
Strong correlations were found between speech reception thresholds in noise for the two tests. A moderate correlation was found between the difference scores that each test uses to detect spatial processing disorder. Consistent diagnoses of whether a child had spatial processing disorder or not on both tests were found for 72% of children.
Conclusions
The moderate-to-strong relationships and agreement between diagnoses found for the LiSN-S and LiSN-U show promise for the LiSN-U being used as a tool to investigate spatial processing disorder in children, without requiring the test to use a language familiar to the children being tested.
Acknowledgements
We would like to thank the participating schools and health services in the three communities, Mark Mitchell from the Queensland Aboriginal and Islander Health Council, King Chung and the audiology students from the University of Northern Illinois, Samantha Harkus, Meagan Ward and Belinda Lesina from Australian Hearing, for their help with collecting data for this study. We would also like to thank Mark Seeto for statistical advice. The study was supported by the Prime Minister and Cabinet Department’s Indigenous Advancement Scheme. Harvey Dillon acknowledges the support of the Australian Department of Health, Macquarie University, and the NIHR Manchester Biomedical Research Centre.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).