Peer-reviewed article
Evaluation of a hearing assessment protocol for children with communication or autism concerns.
Eriel J Confer, Alyssa M Fosnight, Lindsey R Wheeler, Angela Yarnell Bonino ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001This study evaluated a standardized hearing assessment protocol for children aged 18 months to 8 years, including autistic children. Most children (93.9%) had sufficient hearing data to proceed with speech-language or autism evaluations, but autistic children were less likely to meet assessment criteria and required nearly twice as many visits. The protocol showed overall effectiveness but needs refinement to better accommodate autistic children's sensory sensitivities and communication differences.
Key points
- 93.9% of 608 children met criteria for proceeding with speech-language or autism evaluations
- 56.6% of children met criteria for discharge from audiology care
- Autistic children were significantly less likely to meet speech or discharge criteria than non-autistic children (p < .05)
- Autistic children required nearly twice as many encounters to meet assessment criteria
- Autistic children relied more heavily on physiological measures (otoacoustic emissions and auditory brainstem responses) rather than behavioral testing
Limitations
This is a retrospective analysis from a single institution, so findings may not generalize to other settings or populations. The study does not provide information about outcomes for children in different countries or healthcare systems.
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: Autistic children often face barriers to accessing timely and accurate hearing evaluations. Yet determining a child's hearing status is important for maximizing developmental outcomes when there are communication concerns. METHODS: This study evaluated the effectiveness of a standardized hearing assessment protocol for children aged 18 months to 8 years, with and without an autism diagnosis in their medical record. The protocol aimed to determine whether sufficient hearing data were available for children to proceed with speech-language or autism evaluations ("speech criteria") and/or be discharged from audiology care ("discharge criteria"). RESULTS: Retrospective analyses of 608 children's medical records from a single institution revealed that 93.9% of children met speech criteria and 56.6% met discharge criteria. Relative to children in the comparison group, autistic children were significantly less likely to meet speech or discharge criteria (all p-values < .05), required nearly twice as many encounters to do so, and relied more heavily on physiological measures (e.g., distortion product otoacoustic emissions and sedated auditory brainstem responses). Despite these differences, many autistic children successfully met criteria by the second encounter, demonstrating the protocol's overall effectiveness. DISCUSSION: Findings underscore the need for protocol refinement by incorporating tailored supports that address sensory sensitivities, communication differences, and learning profiles of autistic children. Future research should investigate strategies to optimize behavioral testing and design fast-track pathways based on physiological assessments. The protocol presented here has the potential to advance patient care and improve timely and accurate determination of hearing status in children undergoing a speech-language and/or autism evaluation.