Referral and Diagnosis of Developmental Auditory Processing Disorder in a Large, United States Hospital-Based Audiology Service

Abstract

Background:

Children referred to audiology services with otherwise unexplained academic, listening, attention, language, or other difficulties are often found to be audiometrically normal. Some of these children receive further evaluation for auditory processing disorder (APD), a controversial construct that assumes neural processing problems within the central auditory nervous system. This study focuses on the evaluation of APD and how it relates to diagnosis in one large pediatric audiology facility.

Purpose:

To analyze electronic records of children receiving a central auditory processing evaluation (CAPE) at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, with a broad goal of understanding current practice in APD diagnosis and the test information which impacts that practice.

Research Design:

A descriptive, cross-sectional analysis of APD test outcomes in relation to final audiologist diagnosis for 1,113 children aged 5–19 yr receiving a CAPE between 2009 and 2014.

Results:

Children had a generally high level of performance on the tests used, resulting in marked ceiling effects on about half the tests. Audiologists developed the diagnostic category “Weakness” because of the large number of referred children who clearly had problems, but who did not fulfill the AAA/ASHA criteria for diagnosis of a “Disorder.” A “right-ear advantage” was found in all tests for which each ear was tested, irrespective of whether the tests were delivered monaurally or dichotically. However, neither the side nor size of the ear advantage predicted the ultimate diagnosis well. Cooccurrence of CAPE with other learning problems was nearly universal, but neither the number nor the pattern of cooccurring problems was a predictor of APD diagnosis. The diagnostic patterns of individual audiologists were quite consistent. The number of annual assessments decreased dramatically during the study period.

Conclusions:

A simple diagnosis of APD based on current guidelines is neither realistic, given the current tests used, nor appropriate, as judged by the audiologists providing the service. Methods used to test for APD must recognize that any form of hearing assessment probes both sensory and cognitive processing. Testing must embrace modern methods, including digital test delivery, adaptive testing, referral to normative data, appropriate testing for young children, validated screening questionnaires, and relevant objective (physiological) methods, as appropriate. Audiologists need to collaborate with other specialists to understand more fully the behaviors displayed by children presenting with listening difficulties. To achieve progress, it is essential for clinicians and researchers to work together. As new understanding and methods become available, it will be necessary to sort out together what works and what doesn’t work in the clinic, both from a theoretical and a practical perspective.

Key Words

central auditory system - children - developmental disorder - dichotic listening - listening difficulty - right-ear advantage

This study was supported in part by the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders, grant 1R01DC014078, and by funds from Cincinnati Children’s Research Foundation.

• REFERENCES

• American Academy of Audiology (AAA) 2010. Guidelines for the diagnosis, treatment, and management of children and adults with central auditory processing disorder. Washington, DC: AAA;
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) 1996; Central auditory processing: Current status of research and implications for clinical practice. Am J Audiol 5 (01) 41-54
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) 2005. (Central) auditory processing disorders: the role of the audiologist. Rockville, MD: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association;
• Barry JG, Tomlin D, Moore DR, Dillon H. 2015; Use of questionnaire-based measures in the assessment of listening difficulties in school-aged children. Ear Hear 36 (06) e300-e313
• Broadbent DE. 1952; Listening to one of two synchronous messages. J Exp Psychol 44 (01) 51-55
• British Society of Audiology (BSA) 2011 Position statement: auditory processing disorder (APD). www.thebsa.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/OD104-39-Position-Statement-APD-2011-1.pdf . Accessed December 20, 2016
• Cameron S, Glyde H, Dillon H, King A, Gillies K. 2015; Results from a national central auditory processing disorder service: a “real world” assessment of diagnostic practices and remediation for CAPD. Semin Hear 36: 216-236
• Cameron S, Glyde H, Dillon H, Whitfield J. 2016; Investigating the Interaction between Dichotic Deficits and Cognitive Abilities Using the Dichotic Digits difference Test (DDdT) Part 2. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (06) 470-479
• Cameron S, Glyde H, Dillon H, Whitfield J, Seymour J. 2016; The Dichotic Digits difference Test (DDdT): Development, Normative Data, and Test-Retest Reliability Studies Part 1. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (06) 458-469
• Campbell NG, Bamiou DE, Sirimanna T. 2012; Current progress in auditory processing disorder. ENT Audiol News 21: 86-90
• Carhart R, Jerger J. 1959; Preferred method for clinical determination of pure-tone thresholds. J Speech Hear Disord 24: 330-345
• Dawes P, Bishop D. 2009; Auditory processing disorder in relation to developmental disorders of language, communication and attention: a review and critique. Int J Lang Commun Disord 44 (04) 440-465
• Dawes P, Bishop DV. 2010; Psychometric profile of children with auditory processing disorder and children with dyslexia. Arch Dis Child 95 (06) 432-436
• DeBonis DA. 2015; It is time to rethink central auditory processing disorder protocols for school-aged children. Am J Audiol 24 (02) 124-136
• Emanuel DC, Ficca KN, Korczak P. 2011; Survey of the diagnosis and management of auditory processing disorder. Am J Audiol 20 (01) 48-60
• Ferguson MA, Hall RL, Riley A, Moore DR. 2011; Communication, listening, cognitive and speech perception skills in children with auditory processing disorder (APD) or Specific Language Impairment (SLI). J Speech Lang Hear Res 54 (01) 211-227
• Green DM, Swets JE. 1966. Signal Detection Theory and Psychophysics. New York, NY: Wiley;
• Hind SE, Haines-Bazrafshan R, Benton CL, Brassington W, Towle B, Moore DR. 2011; Prevalence of clinical referrals having hearing thresholds within normal limits. Int J Audiol 50 (10) 708-716
• Katz J. 1983. Phonemic synthesis. In: Lasky E, Katz J. Central Auditory Processing Disorders. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press;
• Katz J, Harmon C. 1981. Phonemic synthesis: diagnostic and training program. In: Keith R. Central Auditory and Language Disorders in Children. Houston, TX: College Hill Press;
• Katz J, Smith PS. 1991; The Staggered Spondaic Word Test: a ten-minute look at the central nervous system through the ears. Ann N Y Acad Sci 620: 233-251
• Keith RW. 2009. SCAN–3:C Tests for Auditory Processing Disorders for Children. Bloomington, MN: Pearson;
• Kimura D. 1961; Cerebral dominance and the perception of verbal stimuli. Can J Psychol 15: 166-171
• Liberman MC. 2015; Hidden hearing loss. Sci Am 313 (02) 48-53
• Loo JH, Bamiou DE, Rosen S. 2013; The impacts of language background and language-related disorders in auditory processing assessment. J Speech Lang Hear Res 56 (01) 1-12
• McDermott EE, Smart JL, Boiano JA, Bragg LE, Colon TN, Hanson EM, Emanuel DC, Kelly AS. 2016; Assessing auditory processing abilities in typically developing school-aged children. J Am Acad Audiol 27 (02) 72-84
• Miller CA, Wagstaff DA. 2011; Behavioral profiles associated with auditory processing disorder and specific language impairment. J Commun Disord 44 (06) 745-763
• Moore DR. 2015; Sources of pathology underlying listening disorders in children. Int J Psychophysiol 95 (02) 125-134
• Moore DR, Rosen S, Bamiou DE, Campbell NG, Sirimanna T. 2013; Evolving concepts of developmental auditory processing disorder (APD): a British Society of Audiology APD special interest group ‘white paper’. Int J Audiol 52 (01) 3-13
• Musiek FE. 1983; Assessment of central auditory dysfunction: the dichotic digit test revisited. Ear Hear 4 (02) 79-83
• Musiek FE. 1994; Frequency (pitch) and duration pattern tests. J Am Acad Audiol 5 (04) 265-268
• Musiek FE, Weihing J. 2011; Perspectives on dichotic listening and the corpus callosum. Brain Cogn 76 (02) 225-232
• Penner IK, Schläfli K, Opwis K, Hugdahl K. 2009; The role of working memory in dichotic-listening studies of auditory laterality. J Clin Exp Neuropsychol 31 (08) 959-966
• Rosenthal R. 1994. Parametric measures of effect size. In: Cooper H, Hedges LV. The Handbook of Research Synthesis. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation;
• Sharma M, Purdy SC, Kelly AS. 2009; Comorbidity of auditory processing, language, and reading disorders. J Speech Lang Hear Res 52 (03) 706-722
• Smits C, Watson CS, Kidd GR, Moore DR, Goverts ST. 2016; A comparison between the Dutch and American-English digits-in-noise (DIN) tests in normal-hearing listeners. Int J Audiol 55 (06) 358-365
• Vermiglio AJ. 2014; On the clinical entity in audiology: (central) auditory processing and speech recognition in noise disorders. J Am Acad Audiol 25 (09) 904-917
• Wilson WJ, Arnott W. 2013; Using different criteria to diagnose (central) auditory processing disorder: how big a difference does it make?. J Speech Lang Hear Res 56 (01) 63-70