A Comparative Analysis of Tests for Central Auditory Function and Tests for Auditory Processing

The purpose of the present investigation was to determine whether there was a relationship between the results obtained from tests of auditory language performance and those obtained from tests of central auditory performance. The performances of ten learning disabled children were compared with the performances of ten normal achievers on the six auditory language subtests of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities and the staggered spondaic word test and Willeford's tests of central auditory processing abilities. The two groups were matched according to sex, age, and socioeconomic status. Only children having normal peripheral hearing and an IQ within normal range were included in the investigation. The results of the two test batteries were analyzed statistically using a t-test for related samples, a correlation matrix and a regression analysis.The findings of the study revealed that: (1) the experimental and control groups differed significantly on the auditory reception subtest of the ITPA and the filtered speech portion of Willeford's tests for central auditory processing abilities. No other significant differences were found for any of the other tests; (2) both the experimental and control groups obtained scores which were below the normal range of performance as set by the authors of the central auditory tests. These results indicate that all subjects in the investigation were exhibiting central auditory problems; (3) in an attempt to predict performance on the central auditory tests, it was found that a combination of the auditory sequential memory and auditory closure subtests of the ITPA predicted performance on the staggered spondaic word test. It was also revealed that the auditory sequential memory subtest of the ITPA predicted performance on the binaural resynthesis part of Willeford's tests. These were the only predictors identified; and (4) the low socioeconomic status of the subjects did not appear to affect their performance on the ITPA. It is possible that the low socioeconomic status of the subjects was a contributing factor to their low performance on the central auditory tests. However, the lower scores may simply reflect the age of the subjects, a factor which was not considered when the norms of the central auditory tests were established.The implications of these findings are that: (1) one set of norms for all age groups may not be adequate enough to differentiate abnormal from normal in the area of central auditory performance; (2) the small number of predictors between the auditory language tests and the central auditory tests may indicate that these two types of tests are tapping into different systems and evaluating two different kinds of auditory processing; and (3) when working with children who have been identified by the SSW as having central auditory difficulty, incorporation of tasks stressing auditory memory and filling in missing auditory cues may aid in the overall rehabilitation of these children.