Download PDF
J Am Acad Audiol 2018; 29(03): 223-232
DOI: 10.3766/jaaa.16134
Articles
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Test–Retest Reliability and Minimal Detectable Change of Randomized Dichotic Digits in Learning-Disabled Children: Implications for Dichotic Listening Training

Mohammad Ebrahim Mahdavi
*   Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
†   Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Shahid Beheshti University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Akram Pourbakht
*   Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
‡   Rehabilitation Research Center, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
,
Akram Parand
§   Faculty of Psychology and Education, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran
,
Shohreh Jalaie
¶   Department of Physiotherapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
29 May 2020 (online)

Also available at
   Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

Background:

Evaluation of dichotic listening to digits is a common part of many studies for diagnosis and managing auditory processing disorders in children. Previous researchers have verified test–retest relative reliability of dichotic digits results in normal children and adults. However, detecting intervention-related changes in the ear scores after dichotic listening training requires information regarding trial-to-trial typical variation of individual ear scores that is estimated using indices of absolute reliability. Previous studies have not addressed absolute reliability of dichotic listening results.

Purpose:

To compare the results of the Persian randomized dichotic digits test (PRDDT) and its relative and absolute indices of reliability between typical achieving (TA) and learning-disabled (LD) children.

Research Design:

A repeated measures observational study.

Study Sample:

Fifteen LD children were recruited from a previously performed study with age range of 7–12 yr. The control group consisted of 15 TA schoolchildren with age range of 8–11 yr.

Data Collection and Analysis:

The Persian randomized dichotic digits test was administered on the children under free recall condition in two test sessions 7–12 days apart. We compared the average of the ear scores and ear advantage between TA and LD children. Relative indices of reliability included Pearson’s correlation and intraclass correlation (ICC2,1) coefficients and absolute reliability was evaluated by calculation of standard error of measurement (SEM) and minimal detectable change (MDC) using the raw ear scores.

Results:

The Pearson correlation coefficient indicated that in both groups of children the ear scores of test and retest sessions were strongly and positively (greater than +0.8) correlated. The ear scores showed excellent ICC coefficient of consistency (0.78–0.82) and fair to excellent ICC coefficient of absolute agreement (0.62–0.74) in TA children and excellent ICC coefficients of consistency and absolute agreement in LD children (0.76–0.87). SEM and SEM% of the ear scores in TA children were 1.46 and 1.44% for the right ear and 4.68 and 5.47% for the left ear. SEM and SEM% of the ear scores in LD children were 4.55 and 5.88% for the right ear to 7.56 and 12.81% for the left ear. MDC and MDC% of the ear scores in TA children varied from 4.03 and 3.99% for the right ear to 12.93 and 15.13% for the left ear. MDC and MDC% of the ear scores in LD children varied from 12.57 and 16.25% for the right ear to 20.89 and 35.39% for the left ear.

Conclusions:

The LD children indicated test–retest relative reliability as high as TA children in the ear scores measured by PRDDT. However, within-subject variations of the ear scores calculated by indices of absolute reliability were considerably higher in LD children versus TA children. The results of the current study could have implications for detecting real training-related changes in the ear scores.

Key Words

dichotic listening - digits - learning disability - minimal detectable change - test–retest reliability
 

  • REFERENCES

  • Aghazadeh J, Mahdavi ME, Tahaei S, Tabatabaee S. 2015; Inter-list equivalency and reliability of the Persian randomized dichotic digits test. Aud Ves Res 24: 71-79
    Google Scholar
  • American Psychiatric Association 2000. Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Association;
    Google Scholar
  • Atkinson G, Nevill AM. 1998; Statistical methods for assessing measurement error (reliability) in variables relevant to sports medicine. Sports Med 26 (04) 217-238
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Aylward EH. 1984; Lateral asymmetry in subgroups of dyslexic children. Brain Lang 22 (02) 221-231
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bakker DJ, Van der Vlugt H, Claushuis M. 1978; The reliability of dichotic ear asymmetry in normal children. Neuropsychologia 16 (06) 753-757
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Baumgartner TA. 1989. Norm-referenced measurement: reliability. In: Safrit MJ, Wood TM. Measurement Concepts in Physical Education and Exercise Science. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics;
    Google Scholar
  • Beckerman H, Roebroeck ME, Lankhorst GJ, Becher JG, Bezemer PD, Verbeek AL. 2001; Smallest real difference, a link between reproducibility and responsiveness. Qual Life Res 10 (07) 571-578
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Blumstein S, Goodglass H, Tartter V. 1975; The reliability of ear advantage in dichotic listening. Brain Lang 2 (02) 226-236
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Bruton A, Conway JH, Holgate ST. 2000; Reliability: what is it, and how is it measured?. Physiotherapy 86: 94-99
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • de Vet HC, Terwee CB, Knol DL, Bouter LM. 2006; When to use agreement versus reliability measures. J Clin Epidemiol 59 (10) 1033-1039
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Department of Veterans Affairs 1998. Materials for Auditory Perceptual AssessmentTonal and Speech Disc 2.0., VA Medical Center. Mountain Home, TN: Rehabilitation Research and Development Service, VA Medical Center;
    Google Scholar
  • Downham DY, Holmba MA, Lexell J. 2005. Reliability of measurements in medical research and clinical practice. In: Paton R, McNamara L. Multidisciplinary Approaches to Theory in Medicine. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier; doi: 10.1016/S1571-0831(06)80013-4
    Google Scholar
  • English K, Martonik J, Moir L. 2003; An auditory training technique to improve dichotic listening. Hear J 56: 34-36
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Esmaili SK, Shafaroodi N, Mehraban AH, Parand A, Qorbani M, Yazdani F, Mahmoudpour A. 2016; Prevalence of psychiatric symptoms and mental health services in students with specific learning disabilities in Tehran, Iran. Int J Ment Health Addict 14: 438-448
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Fleiss JL. 1986. Design and Analysis of Clinical Experiments. 1st ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons;
    Google Scholar
  • Gadea M, Gomez C, Espert R. 2000; Test-retest performance for the consonant-vowel dichotic listening test with and without attentional manipulations. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 22 (06) 793-803
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Ghannoum MT, Shalaby AA, Dabbous AO, Abd-El-Raouf ER, Abd-El-Hady HS. 2014; Central auditory processing functions in learning disabled children assessed by behavioural tests. Hear Balance Commun 12: 143-154
    Google Scholar
  • Hugdahl K, Hammar A. 1997; Test-retest reliability for the consonant-vowel syllables dichotic listening paradigm. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 19 (05) 667-675
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Jerger J, Martin J. 2006; Dichotic listening tests in the assessment of auditory processing disorders. Audiol Med 4: 25-34
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Katz J, Chertoff M, Sawusch JR. 1984; Dichotic training. J Aud Res 24 (04) 251-264
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Keefe B, Swinney D. 1979; On the relationship of hemispheric specialization and developmental dyslexia. Cortex 15 (03) 471-481
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Keith RW. 2007. Diagnosing central auditory processing disorders in children. In: Roeser RJ, Valente M, Hosford-Dunn H. Audiology: Diagnosis. New York, NY: Thieme Medical Publisher;
    Google Scholar
  • Keith RW, Anderson J. 2007. Dichotic listening tests. In: Museik F, Chermak GD. Handbook of (Central) Auditory Processing Disorder. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing;
    Google Scholar
  • Kimura D. 1961; Cerebral dominance and the perception of verbal stimuli. Can J Psychol 15: 166
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Kimura D. 1967; Functional asymmetry of the brain in dichotic listening. Cortex 3: 163-178
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Koomar JA, Cermak SA. 1981; Reliability of dichotic listening using two stimulus formats with normal and learning-disabled children. Am J Occup Ther 35 (07) 456-463
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Lexell JE, Downham DY. 2005; How to assess the reliability of measurements in rehabilitation. Am J Phys Med Rehabil 84 (09) 719-723
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mahdavi ME, Aghazadeh J, Tahaei SAA, Heiran F, Akbarzadeh Baghban A. 2015; Persian randomized dichotic digits test: development and dichotic listening performance in young adults (in Persian). Audiology 23: 99-113
    Google Scholar
  • Moncrieff DW. 2011; Dichotic listening in children: age-related changes in direction and magnitude of ear advantage. Brain Cogn 76 (02) 316-322
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Moncrieff DW, Black JR. 2008; Dichotic listening deficits in children with dyslexia. Dyslexia 14 (01) 54-75
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Moncrieff D, Keith W, Abramson M, Swann A. 2016; Diagnosis of amblyaudia in children referred for auditory processing assessment. Int J Audiol 55 (06) 333-345
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Moncrieff DW, Musiek FE. 2002; Interaural asymmetries revealed by dichotic listening tests in normal and dyslexic children. J Am Acad Audiol 13 (08) 428-437
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Moncrieff DW, Wertz D. 2008; Auditory rehabilitation for interaural asymmetry: preliminary evidence of improved dichotic listening performance following intensive training. Int J Audiol 47 (02) 84-97
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Moncrieff DW, Wilson RH. 2009; Recognition of randomly presented one-, two-, and three-pair dichotic digits by children and young adults. J Am Acad Audiol 20 (01) 58-70
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Mukari SZ, Keith RW, Tharpe AM, Johnson CD. 2006; Development and standardization of single and double dichotic digit tests in the Malay language. Int J Audiol 45 (06) 344-352
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Musiek FE. 1983; Assessment of central auditory dysfunction: the dichotic digit test revisited. Ear Hear 4: 79-83
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Musiek FE, Baran JA, Shinn J. 2004; Assessment and remediation of an auditory processing disorder associated with head trauma. J Am Acad Audiol 15 (02) 117-132
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Musiek FE, Weihing J. 2011; Perspectives on dichotic listening and the corpus callosum. Brain Cogn 76 (02) 225-232
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Musiek F, Weihing JA, Lau C. 2008; Dichotic interaural intensity difference (DIID) training: a review of existing research and future directions. J Acad Rehabil Audiol 41: 51-65
    Google Scholar
  • Neijenhuis K, Snik A, van den Broek P.. 2003; Auditory processing disorders in adults and children: evaluation of a test battery. Int J Audiol 42 (07) 391-400
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Noffsinger D, Martinez CD, Wilson RH. 1994; Dichotic listening to speech: background and preliminary data for digits, sentences, and nonsense syllables. J Am Acad Audiol 5 (04) 248-254
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Obrzut JE, Mahoney EB. 2011; Use of the dichotic listening technique with learning disabilities. Brain Cogn 76 (02) 323-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Pelham WE. 1979; Selective attention deficits in poor readers? Dichotic listening, speeded classification, and auditory and visual central and incidental learning tasks. Child Dev 50 (04) 1050-1061
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Penner IK, Schläfli K, Opwis K, Hugdahl K. 2009; The role of working memory in dichotic-listening studies of auditory laterality. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 31 (08) 959-966
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Pinheiro FH, Oliveira AM, Cardoso ACV, Capellini SA. 2010; Dichotic listening tests in students with learning disabilities. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol (Engl Ed) 76 (02) 257-262
    Google Scholar
  • Pizzamiglio L, De Pascalis C, Vignati A. 1974; Stability of dichotic listening test. Cortex 10 (02) 203-205
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Stratford PW. 2004; Getting more from the literature: estimating the standard error of measurement from reliability studies. Physiother Can 56: 27-30
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • Strouse AL, Hall 3rd JW. 1995; Test-retest reliability of a dichotic digits test for assessing central auditory function in Alzheimer’s disease. Audiology 34 (02) 85-90
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Strouse A, Wilson RH. 1999; a Stimulus length uncertainty with dichotic digit recognition. J Am Acad Audiol 10 (04) 219-229
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Strouse A, Wilson RH. 1999; b Recognition of one-, two-, and three-pair dichotic digits under free and directed recall. J Am Acad Audiol 10 (10) 557-571
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Strouse A, Wilson RH, Brush N. 2000; Recognition of dichotic digits under pre-cued and post-cued response conditions in young and elderly listeners. Br J Audiol 34 (03) 141-151
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Thomson ME. 1976; A comparison of laterality effects in dyslexics and controls using verbal dichotic listening tasks. Neuropsychologia 14 (02) 243-246
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Weihing J, Musiek FE. 2013. Dichotic interaural intensity difference (DIID) training. In: Chermak GD, Musiek FE. Handbook of Central Auditory Processing Disorder: Comprehensive Intervention. San Diego, CA: Plural Publishing;
    Google Scholar
  • Weir JP. 2005; Quantifying test-retest reliability using the intraclass correlation coefficient and the SEM. J Strength Cond Res 19 (01) 231-240
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Wilson RH, Jaffe MS. 1996; Interactions of age, ear, and stimulus complexity on dichotic digit recognition. J Am Acad Audiol 7 (05) 358-364
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • Zaki R, Bulgiba A, Nordin N, Azina Ismail N. 2013; A systematic review of statistical methods used to test for reliability of medical instruments measuring continuous variables. Iran J Basic Med Sci 16 (06) 803-807
    PubMedGoogle Scholar