Performance of public and private school students in auditory processing, receptive vocabulary, and reading comprehension
Desempenho de alunos de escola pública e privada em processamento auditivo, vocabulário receptivo e compreensão leitora
Ana Flávia de Oliveira Nalom; Eliane Schochat
Abstract
Purpose: To characterize the performance of 5th grade students from public and private elementary schools in auditory processing, receptive vocabulary, and reading comprehension. Methods: The study sample was composed of 34 Elementary School (5th grade) students: 16 from public school (PubG) and 18 from private school (PrivG), whose parents and teachers responded to questionnaires on their language development, socioeconomic level, and academic performance. The auditory skills of figure-ground, association between auditory and visual stimuli, figure-ground for linguistic sounds, binaural integration, temporal ordering, and temporal resolution were assessed using the following auditory behavioral instruments: Pediatric Speech Intelligibility (PSI) test, Dichotic Digits Test (DDT), Auditec® Frequency Pattern Test (FPT), and Gaps-in-Noise (GIN) test. Receptive vocabulary and reading comprehension were evaluated using the TVF-usp and PROLEC tests, respectively. Results: Statistically significant differences were observed between the socioeconomic level of students in both schools. Although the results obtained in the applied tests were within the reference values in both groups, there was a tendency to higher scores in the PrivG. Differences between the groups were also verified in the DDT and FPT. Values similar to normality were obtained in the temporal resolution and reading comprehension assessments. On the vocabulary test, most school children in the PrivG were concentrated in the ‘high’ and ‘middle’ categories, whereas those in the PubG were in the ‘middle’ and ‘low’ categories. Conclusion: There are differences in performance between students from private and public schools. Public school children presented right ear advantage in the dichotic task, whereas private school children showed more efficient mechanisms and strategies regarding auditory stimuli for the tasks of binaural integration, temporal ordering, and interhemispheric transfer. Temporal resolution reached values expected for the adult population in both groups. Better vocabulary performance was observed in the most economically favored children. Elementary School (5th grade) students from both school networks present developed reading.
Keywords
Resumo
Objetivo: caracterizar o desempenho de escolares de 5º ano do ensino fundamental de escola pública e privada em processamento auditivo, vocabulário receptivo e compreensão leitora. Método: foram avaliadas 34 crianças do 5º ano do ensino fundamental (GPub: 16 de escola pública; e GPriv: 18 de escola privada), cujos pais e professores responderam a questionários sobre o desenvolvimento da linguagem, nível socioeconômico e desempenho acadêmico. As habilidades auditivas de figura-fundo e associação de estímulos auditivos e visuais, figura-fundo para sons linguísticos, integração binaural, ordenação temporal e resolução temporal foram avaliadas com os testes comportamentais Pediatric Speech Intelligibility Test, Dicótico de Dígitos, Teste Padrão de Frequência versão da Auditec® e Gaps-in-Noise. O vocabulário foi avaliado com o Teste de Vocabulário por Figuras USP e a compreensão leitora com teste PROLEC. Resultados: houve diferença significante entre o nível socioeconômico dos grupos pesquisados, embora, em ambos os grupos, pôde-se observar resultados dentro dos valores de referência nos testes aplicados. Houve uma tendência a pontuações mais elevadas no grupo de alunos da escola privada. Houve diferença nos testes Dicótico de Dígitos e Padrão de Frequência. Os valores obtidos no teste de resolução temporal se equipararam à normalidade, assim como na avaliação da compreensão leitora. A maioria das crianças do ensino privado concentrou-se nas categorias ‘elevado’ e ‘médio’ do teste de vocabulário. As crianças do ensino público concentraram-se nas categorias ‘médio’ e ‘rebaixado’. Conclusão: as crianças do ensino público apresentaram uma vantagem da orelha direita na tarefa dicótica. A resolução temporal atingiu valores esperados para a população adulta em ambos os grupos. Melhor desempenho em vocabulário foi observado nas crianças mais favorecidas economicamente. A leitura encontra-se desenvolvida no 5º ano do ensino fundamental de ambas as redes
Palavras-chave
Referências
1. Pereira LD, Schochat E. Processamento auditivo central: manual de avaliação. São Paulo: Ed.Lovise, 1997. [ Links ]
2. Moore DR. Auditory processing disorders: Acquisition and treatment. J Commun Disord. 2007; 40(4): 295-304. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2007.03.005. [ Links ]
3. Kral A. Auditory critical periods: a review from system’s perspective. Neuroscience. 2013; 247: 113-33. PMid: 23707979. DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2013.05.021. [ Links ]
4. Amaral MIR, Martins JE, Santos MFC. Estudo da audição em crianças com fissura labiopalatina não-sindrômica. Braz J Otorhinolaryngol. 2010; 76(2): 164-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1808-86942010000200004 [ Links ]
5. Krizman J, Skoe E, Mirian V, Kraus N. Bilinguism increases neural response consistency and attentional control: Evidence for sensory and cognitive coupling. Brain Lang. 2014; 128(1): 34.40. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bandl.2013.11.006. [ Links ]
6. Micheyl C, Delhommeau K, Perrot X, Oxenham AJ. Influence of musical and psychoacustical training on pitch discrimination. Hear Res. 2006; 219 (1-2): 36-47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heares.2006.05.004. [ Links ]
7. Vasuki PRM, Sharma M, Ibrahim R, Arciuli J. Statistical learning and auditory processing in children with music training: An ERP study. Clinic Neurophys. 2017; 128: 1270-81. PMid: 28545016. DOI: 10.1016/j.clinph.2017.04.010. [ Links ]
8. Neves IF, Schochat E. Maturação do processamento auditivo em crianças com e sem dificuldades escolares. Pró-Fono R. Atual. Cient. 2005;17(3):311-20. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0104-56872005000300005. [ Links ]
9. Jerger J, Musiek F. Report of the consensus conference on the diagnosis of auditory processing disorders in school-aged children. J Am Acad Audiol. 2000; 11: 467-74. PMid: 11057730. [ Links ]
10. Capovilla FC, Prudêncio ER. Teste de Vocabulário Auditivo por Figuras: Normatização e validação preliminares. Avaliação Psicológica. 2006, 5(6): 189-203. [ Links ]
11. Seiger-Gardner L, Schwartz RG. Lexical access in children with and without specific language impairment: a cross-modal picture-word interference study. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2008;43(5):528-51. PMid: 22612630. DOI: 10.1080/13682820701768581. [ Links ]
12. Gow Jr DW. The cortical organization of lexical knowledge: A dual lexicon model of spoken language processing. Brain Lang . 2012; 121(3):273-88. PMid: 22498237. PMCID: PMC3348354. DOI: 10.1016/j.bandl.2012.03.005. [ Links ]
13. Berninger VW, Abbott RD, Vermeulen K, Fulton CM. Paths to reading comprehension in at-risk second-grade readers. J Learn Disabil. 2006;39:334-51. PMid: 16895158. DOI: 10.1177/00222194060390040701. [ Links ]
14. Tarchi C. Reading Comprehension of informative texts in secondary school: A focus on direct and indirect effects of reader’s prior knowledge. Learn Individ Differ. 2010; 20 (2010): 415-420. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2010.04.002 [ Links ]
15. Duursma E, Pan BA, Raikes H. Predictors and outcomes of low-income fathers’ reading with their toddlers. Early Child Res Q. 2008;23(3):351-65. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2008.06.001. [ Links ]
16. Coddington CH, Mistry RS, Bailey AL. Socioeconomic status and receptive vocabulary development: Replication of the parental investment model with Chilean preschoolers and their families. Early Child Res Q . 2014; 29: 538-49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2014.06.004. [ Links ]
17. Feitosa SF, Garrafa V, Cornelli G, Tardivo C, Carvalho SJ. Bioethics, culture and infanticide in Brazilian indigenous communities: the Zuruahá case. Cad. Saúde Pública . 2010. 26(5): 853-65. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-311X2010000500002. [ Links ]
18. Schoon I, Jones E, Cheng H, Maughan B. Family hardship, family instability, and cognitive development. J Epidemiol Commun Heal. 2012; 66: 716-22. PMid: 21507894. DOI: 10.1136/jech.2010.121228. [ Links ]
19. Von Stumm S. Socioeconomic status amplifies the achievement gap throughout compulsory education independent of intelligence. Intelligence. 2017; 60:57-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intell.2016.11.006. [ Links ]
20. Browman AS, Destin M, Carswell KL, Svoboda RC. Perceptions of socioeconomic mobility influence academic persistence among low socioeconomic status students. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2017; 72:45-52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.03.006. [ Links ]
21. ABNT- Associação Brasileira de Normas Técnicas. NBR 10152: Níveis de ruído para conforto acústico. Rio de Janeiro, 2000. [ Links ]
22. Capellini SA, Oliveira AM, Cuetos, F. Prolec - Provas dos Processos de Leitura: manual. Fernando Cuetos, Blanca Rodrigues e Elvira Ruano; adaptação para o português Simone Ap. Capellini, Adriana Marques de Oliveira e Fernando Cuetos. 2.ed. São Paulo: Casa do Psicólogo, 2010. [ Links ]
23. Auditec. Evaluation manual of pitch pattern sequence and duration pattern sequence. St. Louis: Auditec; 1997. [ Links ]
24. Corazza MCA. Avaliação do processamento auditivo central em adultos: teste de padrões tonais auditivos de frequência e teste de padrões tonais auditivos de duração [tese]. São Paulo (SP): Universidade Federal de São Paulo; 1998. [ Links ]
25. Musiek FE, Zaidan EP, Baran JA, Shinn JB, Jirsa RE. Assessing Temporal Process in adults with LD: the GIN test. In: Convention of American Academy of Audiology. Salt Lake City. Annals. Salta lake City. 2004: 203. [ Links ]
26. Samelli AG, Schochat E . Estudo da vantagem da orelha direita em teste de detecção de gap. Rev Bras Otorrinolaringol. 2008;74(2):235-40. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0034-72992008000200013 [ Links ]
27. Garcia VL, Pereira LD, Fukuda Y. Atenção seletiva: PSI em crianças com distúrbio de aprendizagem. Rev. Bras. Otorrinolaringol. 2007; 75(5):404-11. [ Links ]
28. Kimura D. Cerebral dominance and the perception of verbal stimuli. Can J Psychol. 1961; 15: 166-71. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0083219 [ Links ]
29. Murphy CFB, Pontes F, Stivanin L, Picoli E, Schochat E. Auditory processing in children and adolescents in situations of risk and vulnerability. Sao Paulo Med. J. 2012; 130(3):151-58. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-31802012000300004. [ Links ]
30. Cartmill EA, Armstrong BF, Gleitman LR, Goldin-Meadow S, Medina TN, Trueswell JC. Quality of early parent input predicts child vocabulary 3 years later. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2013;110(28):11278-83. PMid: 23798423. PMCID: PMC3710871. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1309518110. [ Links ]
31. Capellini SA , Oliveira AM , Pinheiro FH. Eficácia do programa de remediação metafonológica e de leitura para escolares com dificuldades de aprendizagem. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2011;16(2):189-97. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1516-80342011000200013. [ Links ]
32. Williams GJ, Larkin RF. Narrative writing, reading and cognitive processes in middle childhood: What are the links? Learn Individ Differ . 2013; 28: 142-150. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2012.08.003. [ Links ]
Facebook
Google+
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
StumbleUpon
CiteULike
Reddit
Email