2017
DOI: 10.1044/2017_aja-16-0074
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

(Central) Auditory Processing Disorder Grand Rounds: Multiple Cases, Multiple Causes, Multiple Outcomes

Abstract: These cases illustrate the varied processes and clinical protocols by which children and adults are evaluated, diagnosed, counseled, and treated for (C)APD. In addition, similarities and differences between the referral source, evaluation team, developmental history, comorbidities, test battery, recommendations, and remediations were described. The multiple clinic sites, diversity of clinical philosophies, variety of test measures, and diversity of patient populations make these cases ideal for showcasing the … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2019
2019
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3

Relationship

0
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 3 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Children with suspected APDs have been reported to differ from control group children without auditory difficulties on measures of attention, memory, reading and/or language skills. Comorbidity of APDs with other neurodevelopmental conditions is a norm rather than an exception (Sharma et al, 2009; Musiek et al, 2010; Tomlin et al, 2015); the proportion of children with co-occurring conditions varies across studies but is typically about 40–50% (Sharma et al, 2009; Ferguson et al, 2011). Variations are likely to reflect sampling and test protocol differences across studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Children with suspected APDs have been reported to differ from control group children without auditory difficulties on measures of attention, memory, reading and/or language skills. Comorbidity of APDs with other neurodevelopmental conditions is a norm rather than an exception (Sharma et al, 2009; Musiek et al, 2010; Tomlin et al, 2015); the proportion of children with co-occurring conditions varies across studies but is typically about 40–50% (Sharma et al, 2009; Ferguson et al, 2011). Variations are likely to reflect sampling and test protocol differences across studies.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Clinicians working with children with suspected APD face three important challenges. One is that auditory processing is not a unitary skill and therefore cannot be assessed with one test (Jerger and Musiek, 2000; Wilson, 2018), hence clinicians need to access a range of tests that have age-dependent norms and demonstrated reliability, test efficiency and validity (Musiek et al, 2010; Emanuel et al, 2011; Wilson, 2018; Keith et al, 2019). For example, commonly used tests such as the FPT (Musiek, 1994) and the DDT (Musiek, 1983) have age-related norms while the Random Gap Detection Test (RGDT) has a screening pass level that is applied to all school aged children (Sharma et al, 2006; Kelly, 2007).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Regardless of the reasoning behind the development of a test protocol and materials, the ultimate test of a SRN protocol should be its ability to detect the presence and absence of a target disorder. The disorder could be an SRN disorder (Middelweerd et al, 1990;Vermiglio, Soli, et al, 2017), elevated pure-tone thresholds (Wilson, McArdle, et al, 2007), a lesion of the central auditory nervous system (Sinha, 1959;Richburg et al, 2017), or perhaps auditory neuropathy (Berlin, 2012). Clinicians and researchers should know the diagnostic accuracy of the available SRN protocols.…”
Section: Implications For Clinical Work and Researchmentioning
confidence: 99%