PURPOSE: Auditory processing disorder (APD) may affect 0.2-5% of the paediatric population. The diagnosis of APD remains difficult because of polymorphic symptoms possibly entangled with other difficulties. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a new multi-disciplinary assessment in the French language. METHODS: The battery of tests was composed of: (a) APD targeted speech assessment: speech perception in noise, a dichotic test, temporal processing tests (patterns); (b) Psychometric assessment: sustained auditory attention, sustained visual attention, evaluation of cognitive functions; (c) phonemic identification and discrimination; (d) ENT examination, tonal and vocal audiometry and ABR recordings. The diagnosis was made if two of the targeted speech tests were 2 standard deviations (SDs) below the mean or if only one of the tests was 3 SDs below. The auditory attention tests, as well as the phonemic identification and discrimination tests were complementary to the diagnostic battery. However, they did not allow for the diagnosis of APD. RESULTS: 50 children suspected of APD benefited from this protocol, and 12 were excluded from the study. A diagnosis of APD was confirmed in 17 children (45%). 59% of the patients had associated disorders. The most effective tests for diagnosing APD were dichotic testing (p = 0.001) and pattern recognition (frequency, p = 0.001). The sustained auditory attention test (p = 0.01) and the phonemic identification and discrimination test reinforced the diagnosis of APD. CONCLUSION: It seems important to evaluate children suspected of APD with a multi-disciplinary protocol. It makes it possible to diagnose APD children, but also to identify attentional difficulties and cognitive disorders that may be associated.
PURPOSE: Auditory processing disorder (APD) may affect 0.2-5% of the paediatric population. The diagnosis of APD remains difficult because of polymorphic symptoms possibly entangled with other difficulties. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a new multi-disciplinary assessment in the French language. METHODS: The battery of tests was composed of: (a) APD targeted speech assessment: speech perception in noise, a dichotic test, temporal processing tests (patterns); (b) Psychometric assessment: sustained auditory attention, sustained visual attention, evaluation of cognitive functions; (c) phonemic identification and discrimination; (d) ENT examination, tonal and vocal audiometry and ABR recordings. The diagnosis was made if two of the targeted speech tests were 2 standard deviations (SDs) below the mean or if only one of the tests was 3 SDs below. The auditory attention tests, as well as the phonemic identification and discrimination tests were complementary to the diagnostic battery. However, they did not allow for the diagnosis of APD. RESULTS: 50 children suspected of APD benefited from this protocol, and 12 were excluded from the study. A diagnosis of APD was confirmed in 17 children (45%). 59% of the patients had associated disorders. The most effective tests for diagnosing APD were dichotic testing (p = 0.001) and pattern recognition (frequency, p = 0.001). The sustained auditory attention test (p = 0.01) and the phonemic identification and discrimination test reinforced the diagnosis of APD. CONCLUSION: It seems important to evaluate children suspected of APD with a multi-disciplinary protocol. It makes it possible to diagnose APDchildren, but also to identify attentional difficulties and cognitive disorders that may be associated.