Using different criteria to diagnose (central) auditory processing disorder: how big a difference does it make?
Using different criteria to diagnose (central) auditory processing disorder: how big a difference does it make?
复制标题
使用不同的标准来诊断（中枢）听觉处理障碍：有多大差异？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2013
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
W. Arnott
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. Wilson;W. Arnott
目的
量化9种不同的诊断标准如何影响大样本儿童（中枢）听觉处理（[C]AP）评估中潜在的（中枢）听觉处理障碍（[C]APD）诊断。
方法
对150名周边听力正常的儿童（94名男孩和56名女孩;年龄7.0-15.6岁）进行了文件审查，这些儿童完成了（C）AP评估，包括低通过滤语音，竞争句子，2对两分数字和频率模式以及语言和非语言报告。根据从已发表的技术报告、立场声明和选定的研究中得出的9套不同的诊断标准，将每个儿童分为患有或未患有（C）APD。
结果
潜在（C）APD诊断率范围从最严格标准的7.3%到最宽松标准的96.0%。
结论
在达成更广泛的共识之前，任何（C）APD的诊断都应通过明确说明所用标准进行鉴定。还应支持放弃使用（C）APD作为全球标签的呼吁。
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.