Using Different Criteria to Diagnose (Central) Auditory Processing Disorder: How Big a Difference Does It Make? PurposeTo 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.MethodA 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 ... Article
Article  |   February 01, 2013
Using Different Criteria to Diagnose (Central) Auditory Processing Disorder: How Big a Difference Does It Make?
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Wayne J. Wilson
    University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
  • Wendy Arnott
    University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia
  • Correspondence to Wayne J. Wilson: w.wilson@uq.edu.au
  • Editor: Sid Bacon
    Editor: Sid Bacon×
  • Associate Editor: Dennis McFarland
    Associate Editor: Dennis McFarland×
Article Information
Hearing Disorders / Attention, Memory & Executive Functions / Hearing
Article   |   February 01, 2013
Using Different Criteria to Diagnose (Central) Auditory Processing Disorder: How Big a Difference Does It Make?
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, February 2013, Vol. 56, 63-70. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0352)
History: Received December 23, 2011 , Revised May 18, 2012 , Accepted June 15, 2012
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, February 2013, Vol. 56, 63-70. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0352)
History: Received December 23, 2011; Revised May 18, 2012; Accepted June 15, 2012
Web of Science® Times Cited: 15

PurposeTo 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.

MethodA 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.

ResultsThe rates of potential (C)APD diagnosis ranged from 7.3% for the strictest criteria to 96.0% for the most lenient criteria.

ConclusionsUntil 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.

Acknowledgment
Parts of this article were presented as a poster at AudiologyNOW! 2012, March 28–31, Boston, MA; as an oral presentation at the Global Perspectives on Auditory Processing Conference 2012, March 30–31, Boston, MA; as an oral presentation at the Auditory Processing Disorders: Contemporary Theory & Practice Conference 2012 for the Australian Association of Audiologists in Private Practice, June 9–11, Melbourne, Australia; and as an oral presentation at the Audiology Australia XX National Conference and Workshops 2012, July 1–4, Adelaide, Australia.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access