![]() Open Grey Questionnaires OR > OR "mass screening"Įxcluded articles and reasons for exclusion (n=28) Screening" OR screening AND hearing OR audition OR Questionnaires OR questionnaire OR survey OR surveys OR Mass screening AND hearing AND auditory perceptualĭisorders OR auditory processing disorders Speechbite Option 2-questionnaires OR survey OR hearing test OR "Auditory Perception" OR "Auditory Perception" OR Perceptual Disorders") AND ("Hearing" OR "audition" OR OR "Acoustic Perceptual Disorder" OR "Acoustic Processing Disorders" OR "Psychoacoustical Disorders" OR "Auditory Processing Disorder" OR "Auditory Perceptual Disorders" OR "Auditory Perceptual Disorder" OR "Screening" OR "Screenings") AND ("Auditory Scopus test" OR "mobile app based interventions" OR "mobileĪpplication" OR "Mass Screening" OR "Mass Screenings" "questionnaire design" OR "hearing tests" OR "hearing ("questionnaires" OR "questionnaire" OR "surveys" OR "tamizaje masivo" OR "programas de rastreamento" and LILACS OR inqueritos OR questionarios OR Software OR Questionnaires OR Surveys OR Encuestas OR Cuestionarios Auditory processing disorder (APD) in children: a marker of neurodevelopmental syndrome. ![]() Ahmmed20, in his turn, deals only with the use of the Speech-in-Noise subtest, studying the performance of the subjects in the signal/noise relations of 0 dB and +8 dB to define which of these would better reflect the actual listening difficulties. Domitz Schow (17) propose the screening to be conducted with all the subtests, based on the recommendations of the author of the instrument (5). Despite the SCAN being used in two studies (17,20), the manner of assessment and the parameters of analysis were not the same. However, they diverged from one another, as the tests present their particularities, related to the use of stimuli with different acoustic characteristics and tasks. The remaining four articles coherently described the criterion used (17,19-21). Kiese-Himmel Nickisch (18) did not present the pass/fail criterion used, making it difficult for the instrument to be concisely analyzed, and the methodological procedures to be reproduced by an independent author. The description of the methodological procedures and the pass/fail criterion used in the studies was not homogeneous either. It should be noted that article of 201421 did not mention the parameters of the STAP. In the articles from 2000 (21), there was the need of support from another study to present this information (5,22). The pass/ fail criterion was presented in four articles, and they were the signal-noise relation of 0 dB in the AFG20 failing in two or more tests of the battery conducted, with score of 1 to 1.5 SD below average (19) the parameters recommended by Keith (5), i.e., 1 SD below average composite score of the subtests (18) and a cut-off score criteria of 6 on the SCAP. The screening instruments used were a Screening Test for Auditory Processing Disorders (SCAN) (17) auditory processing behavioral test battery (18), Children's auditory performance scale (CHAPS) (19), the SCAN-3 subtest Auditory Figure-Ground (AFG) in the signal/ noise relations of +8 dB and 0 dB20, the Screening Test for Auditory Processing (STAP) and the Screening Checklist for Auditory Processing (SCAP) (21). It is also important to highlight that, after the reference lists had been sought through and the articles had been solicited to the experts, no additional study was included. None of these met the eligibility criteria. The search on the grey literature identified 1,864 studies the first 100 results from each database were taken into consideration in the initial title and abstract analysis. Neither were the articles available in full text on the repositories to which the researchers' university of origin has access, nor was there availability for them to be acquired. Of the 30 remaining articles, three could not be obtained, even though the authors of the articles had been contacted by e-mail in different days and hours to make possible for the articles to be obtained in full. ![]() Following the eligibility criteria, 1,144 studies were excluded. After the duplicated files had been removed, the first selection of 1,174 articles was conducted (stage 1), through the reading of title and/or abstract. The search on the databases returned 1,366 studies, as shown on the diagram (Figure 1). ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |