NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
ERIC Number: EJ1007662
Record Type: Journal
Publication Date: 2013-Feb
Pages: 8
Abstractor: As Provided
Reference Count: 0
ISSN: ISSN-1092-4388
Using Different Criteria to Diagnose (Central) Auditory Processing Disorder: How Big a Difference Does It Make?
Wilson, Wayne J.; Arnott, Wendy
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, v56 n1 p63-70 Feb 2013
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.
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA). 10801 Rockville Pike, Rockville, MD 20852. Tel: 800-638-8255; Fax: 301-571-0457; e-mail:; Web site:
Publication Type: Journal Articles; Reports - Research
Education Level: N/A
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A