1- Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran 2- Department of Audiology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Iran 3- Biostatistics, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Iran
Abstract: (11446 Views)
Background and Aim: Although double dichotic digit test is a useful tool for assessing the central auditory system in adults, it is more useful for evaluating younger children. The present study aimed to develop the Persian version of the single dichotic digit test and to obtain initial normative data.
Methods: The Persian version of the present test consisted of three different sets of 25 single digit pairs for testing in the free recall, directed recall to right, and directed recall to left conditions. The digits in each list were recorded dichotically on a compact disc. The sectional study was performed on 126 male students, aged between 7 and 9. The test-retest reliability was assessed in 29 subjects two to four weeks after the first test session.
Results: In seven year olds, the mean right and left ear scores increased from around 95.79% and 89.69%, respectively. In eight year olds, the mean right and left ear scores increased from around 98.59% and 96.29%, respectively. The mean right ear advantage decreased from around 6.13% in 7 year olds to around 2% in 8 year olds (p=0.001). No significant difference was found in scores between the free recall and directed recall conditions (p>0.05). The test had a high test-retest reliability (p>0.05).
Conclusion: The Persian version of the test has a high test-retest reliability for evaluating male children aged between 7 and 9 it can be used for assessing binaural integration in male children of this age group.
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported License which allows users to read, copy, distribute and make derivative works for non-commercial purposes from the material, as long as the author of the original work is cited properly.