The performance of South African English first language child speakers on a "low linguistically loaded" central auditory processing test protocol

The lack of standardized tests of central auditory processing disorder (CAPD) in South Africa (SA) led to the formation of a SA CAPD Taskforce, and the interim development of a "low linguistically loaded" CAPD test protocol using test recordings from the 'Tonal and Speech Materials for Auditory Perceptual Assessment Disc 2.0'. This study inferentially compared the performance of 16 SA English first, and 16 SA English second, language adult speakers on this test protocol, and descriptively compared their performances to previously published American normative data. Comparisons between the SA English first and second language speakers showed a poorer right ear performance (p < .05) by the second language speakers on the two-pair dichotic digits test only. Equivalent performances (p < .05) were observed on the left ear performance on the two pair dichotic digits test, and the frequency patterns test, the duration patterns test, the low-pass filtered speech test, the 45% time compressed speech test, the speech masking level difference test, and the consonant vowel consonant (CVC) binaural fusion test. Comparisons between the SA English and the American normative data showed many large differences (up to 37.1% with respect to predicted pass criteria as calculated by mean-2SD cutoffs), with the SA English speakers performing both better and worse depending on the test involved. As a result, the American normative data was not considered appropriate for immediate use as normative data in SA. Instead, the preliminary data provided in this study was recommended as interim normative data for both SA English first and second language adult speakers, until larger scale SA normative data can be obtained.

How does mental health status relate to accessibility and remoteness?

Objective: To determine whether mental illness is associated with accessibility and remoteness. Design: A cross-sectional, population-based, computer-assisted telephone interview survey, stratified by Accessibility and Remoteness Index of Australia (ARIA) categories. Setting: Secondary analysis of data collected from 2545 South Australian adults in October and November 2000. Outcome measures: Psychological distress and depression as determined by the Kessler 10 Psychological Distress Scale, the SF-12 measure of health status, and self-reported mental illness diagnosed by a doctor in the previous 12 months. Results: Overall, mental illness prevalence estimates were similar using the three measures of psychological distress (10.5%), clinical depression (12.9%) and self-reported mental health problem (12.7%). For each measure, there was no statistically significant variation in prevalence across ARIA categories, except for a lower than expected prevalence of depression (7.7%) in the accessible category. There was no trend suggesting higher levels of mental illness among residents of rural and remote regions. Conclusions: The prevalence rates of psychological distress, depression and self-reported mental illness are high. However, we found no evidence that the prevalence of these conditions varies substantially across ARIA categories in South Australia. This finding may challenge existing stereotypes about higher levels of mental illness outside metropolitan Australia.