PURPOSE: To quantify how 9 different diagnostic criteria affected potential (central) auditory processing disorder ([C]APD) diagnoses in a large sample of children referred for (central) auditory processing ([C]AP) assessment. METHOD: A file review was conducted on 150 children (94 boys and 56 girls; ages 7.0-15.6 years) with normal peripheral hearing who had completed a (C)AP assessment involving low-pass filtered speech, competing sentences, 2-pair dichotic digits, and frequency patterns with linguistic and nonlinguistic report. Each child was classified as having or not having (C)APD based on 9 different sets of diagnostic criteria drawn from published technical reports, position statements, and selected research. RESULTS: The rates of potential (C)APD diagnosis ranged from 7.3% for the strictest criteria to 96.0% for the most lenient criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Until greater consensus is reached, any diagnosis of (C)APD should be qualified by an explicit statement of the criteria used. Calls to abandon the use of (C)APD as a global label should also be supported.
PURPOSE: To quantify how 9 different diagnostic criteria affected potential (central) auditory processing disorder ([C]APD) diagnoses in a large sample of children referred for (central) auditory processing ([C]AP) assessment. METHOD: A file review was conducted on 150 children (94 boys and 56 girls; ages 7.0-15.6 years) with normal peripheral hearing who had completed a (C)AP assessment involving low-pass filtered speech, competing sentences, 2-pair dichotic digits, and frequency patterns with linguistic and nonlinguistic report. Each child was classified as having or not having (C)APD based on 9 different sets of diagnostic criteria drawn from published technical reports, position statements, and selected research. RESULTS: The rates of potential (C)APD diagnosis ranged from 7.3% for the strictest criteria to 96.0% for the most lenient criteria. CONCLUSIONS: Until greater consensus is reached, any diagnosis of (C)APD should be qualified by an explicit statement of the criteria used. Calls to abandon the use of (C)APD as a global label should also be supported.
Authors: Carmen C Brewer; Christopher K Zalewski; Kelly A King; Oliver Zobay; Alison Riley; Melanie A Ferguson; Jonathan E Bird; Margaret M McCabe; Linda J Hood; Dennis Drayna; Andrew J Griffith; Robert J Morell; Thomas B Friedman; David R Moore Journal: Eur J Hum Genet Date: 2016-02-17 Impact factor: 4.246
Authors: Lisa L Hunter; Chelsea M Blankenship; Li Lin; Nicholette T Sloat; Audrey Perdew; Hannah Stewart; David R Moore Journal: Ear Hear Date: 2021 Jan/Feb Impact factor: 3.562