ArticleBrain and behavior2025
Psychometric Properties of the Children's Auditory Perception Test: Reliability and Validity Analysis.
Article in Brain and behavior, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThis study aimed to revise and investigate the validity and reliability of the Children's Auditory Perception Test (CIAT), which was developed to evaluate auditory perception skills.
methodsThe study included 100 cochlear implant (CI) users between the ages of 2 and 15, and 80 individuals with normal hearing. In the first session, participants underwent the Turkish Early Language Development Test (TELD-3) and audiometric assessments. The second session involved administering age-appropriate subtests from the CIAT battery. Subtest reliability was evaluated using internal consistency and test-retest methods. We measured the construct validity by examining the relationships between subcategories. Also, we evaluated known-group validity and predictive validity.
resultsThe reliability analysis of the CIAT indicated high internal consistency, with a Cronbach's alpha coefficient of 0.913 for all 17 tests. Subcategories demonstrated reliability ranging from acceptable to excellent (α = 0.741-0.973). Significant differences were observed in auditory perception scores between children with CI and those with normal hearing (p < 0.005), demonstrating the known-group validity of the test across different age groups. Multiple linear regression analysis revealed that factors such as age group, gender, special education duration, receptive and expressive language ages, CI duration, and usage status accounted for 78% of the variability in auditory perception scores (R
conclusionA valid and reliable test battery that evaluates auditory perception skills at different difficulty levels across a wide age range (2-15 years) has been introduced to the literature. However, a notable limitation is that this battery does not include auditory processing assessments, such as speech-in-competition (noise/babble) tests, which could enhance the comprehensiveness of the evaluation.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.