ABSTRACT
OBJECTIVES: The primary goal was to investigate the suitability of CHAPS for assessing cognitive abilities and auditory processing in people with hearing loss (HL), specifically in the domains of auditory processing, verbal working memory, and auditory attention. METHOD: The study comprised 44 individuals between the ages of seven and 14, 22 with HL (N = 11 males) and 22 with normal hearing (N = 10 males). Individuals' auditory attention, working memory, and auditory processing skills were assessed in the study, and self-report questionnaires were used. The evaluation utilized the Sustained Auditory Attention Capacity Test (SAACT), Working Memory Scale (WMS), Filtered Words Test, Auditory Figured Ground Test (AFGT), and the Children's Auditory Performance Scale (CHAPS). Analyses were conducted, including group comparisons, correlation examinations, and receiver operating characteristic evaluations. RESULTS: There were significant differences in CHAPS total, attention, noise, quiet, and multiple inputs between groups. No significant differences were seen in CHAPS_ideal and CHAPS_auditory memory across groups. The study of SAACT and its subscores, WMS and its subscores, FWT, and AFGT revealed a significant difference between groups, caused by the poor performance of persons in the HL group compared to those in the NH group. The SAACT and its subscores correlated significantly with CHAPS_attention. The AUC calculation showed that The SAACT and CHAPS_attention distinguished persons with or without HL (p < 0.05). WMS_STM and WMS_total correlated with CHAPS auditory memory subscale; however, WMS_VWM did not. AUC values for WMS and its subscores showed significant discrimination in identifying children with or without HL (p < 0.05), whereas CHAPS_auditory memory did not (AUC = 0.665; p = 0.060). FWT and AFGT had a significant relationship with CHAPS_noise and CHAPS_multiple inputs subscales. The CHAPS_quiet and CHAPS_ideal subtests only correlated with AFGT. CHAPS_quite and CHAPS_ideal did not exhibit significant discriminative values (p < 0.05) for identifying children with or without HL, while CHAPS_noise, CHAPS_multiple inputs, FWT, and AFGT did. CONCLUSION: The CHAPS_attention subscale could be a trustworthy instrument for assessing auditory attention in children with HL. However, the CHAPS_auditory memory subscale may not be suitable for testing working memory. While performance-based auditory processing tests showed improved discrimination, the CHAPS_noise and CHAPS_multiple inputs subtests can still assess hearing-impaired auditory processing. The CHAPS_quiet and CHAPS_ideal subtests may not evaluate auditory processing.
