Screening for Auditory Processing Disorder in French-Speaking School-Age Children: A Pilot Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: A few clinical screening tools for auditory processing disorder (APD) are currently available. However, most of these tools are in English and cannot be used to screen individuals with a first language other than English. This study aimed to develop an APD screening test battery in French and to assess its psychometric properties in detecting school-age children at risk of APD. METHOD: Prior to their complete audiological APD assessment, 53 children (7-12 years old) were recruited from an audiology clinic. The APD assessment lasted between 2 and 3 hr, including 15-20 min for the screening test battery. The screening test battery was composed of four behavioral subtests and two questionnaires (parent and teacher). RESULTS: When combined, two among the four behavioral subtests showed a sensitivity of 100% and a specificity of 80%. CONCLUSION: The newly developed screening tool could help reduce the number of unnecessary APD assessments, therefore allowing early diagnosis in children with APD and increasing their chances of receiving adequate intervention.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".