Referral and Diagnosis of Developmental Auditory Processing Disorder in a Large, United States Hospital-Based Audiology Service
Authors: Moore David R. , Sieswerda Stephanie L. , Grainger Maureen M. , Bowling Alexandra , Smith Nicholette , Perdew Audrey , Eichert Susan , Alston Sandra , Hilbert Lisa W. , Summers Lynn , Lin Li , Hunter Lisa L. 
Published: March 2017

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.