The University of Southampton
University of Southampton Institutional Repository

An evidence-based perspective on ‘misconceptions’ regarding pediatric auditory processing disorder

An evidence-based perspective on ‘misconceptions’ regarding pediatric auditory processing disorder
An evidence-based perspective on ‘misconceptions’ regarding pediatric auditory processing disorder
In the perspective article “Common Misconceptions Regarding Pediatric Auditory Processing Disorder” (1), the authors attempt to rebut five common “misconceptions” of auditory processing disorder (APD), concerned that children with APD may receive inappropriate or limited management. They describe a chasm between increasing research on APD and the scarcity of “specialized clinics providing diagnosis and management of APD,” seeing that connection resulting in a failure to translate research into practice. We do not recognize this as a failure. In our opinion, the increasing research interest reflects greater recognition of the importance of evidence-based practice, together with the consolidation of a different perspective—that what is needed is increased collaboration between disciplines, rather than “specialized” audiology APD clinics where diagnosis is based solely on arbitrary audiological test batteries and criteria (2, 3).

There are several definitions of APD. The BSA, 2018 describe APD as being “characterized by poor perception of speech and non-speech sounds. It has its origins in impaired neural function, which may include both the afferent and efferent pathways of the central auditory nervous system (CANS), as well as other neural processing systems that provide “top down” modulation of the CANS. APD impacts on everyday life mainly through a reduced ability to listen, and therefore respond appropriately to speech and other sounds” (3). We share the concerns of Iliadou and Kiese-Himmel [(1); hereafter “the perspective article”] that children with listening difficulties in everyday life deserve proper diagnosis and management in order to prevent or limit their negative impact on academic and social skills and well-being. However, we do not share the perspective that APD has been shown to be a distinct diagnostic entity or that we should focus on traditional auditory testing procedures that lack evidence.

Our purpose here is to argue that the “misconceptions” identified in the perspective article are not misconceptions at all, and arise from the opinions of the authors rather than substantial evidence. We reframe those “misconceptions” in three discussion points: (1) APD as a separate diagnosis, (2) Auditory processing and cognitive skills, and (3) Quality of auditory processing tests.
1664-2295
1-4
Neijenhuis, K
4240778c-a0ab-4200-bb76-40afdbf9e212
Campbell, Nicole
fde07dcf-4874-4bab-ab3a-c3bc3c0015da
Cromb, M.
903f0714-d81a-410d-b2c0-65e261542bdb
Luinge, M.R.
1896bd1f-f2dd-4a23-923b-a65d7ee77a7f
Moore, D.R.
32940ff4-1558-4088-8e02-9c1a878e55f7
Rosen, S.
617fd184-8a2f-4e54-afca-1e0ad2d7e70e
de Wit, E.
fe6caf68-d7ae-4d47-84da-9e2cb209dc30
Neijenhuis, K
4240778c-a0ab-4200-bb76-40afdbf9e212
Campbell, Nicole
fde07dcf-4874-4bab-ab3a-c3bc3c0015da
Cromb, M.
903f0714-d81a-410d-b2c0-65e261542bdb
Luinge, M.R.
1896bd1f-f2dd-4a23-923b-a65d7ee77a7f
Moore, D.R.
32940ff4-1558-4088-8e02-9c1a878e55f7
Rosen, S.
617fd184-8a2f-4e54-afca-1e0ad2d7e70e
de Wit, E.
fe6caf68-d7ae-4d47-84da-9e2cb209dc30

Neijenhuis, K, Campbell, Nicole, Cromb, M., Luinge, M.R., Moore, D.R., Rosen, S. and de Wit, E. (2019) An evidence-based perspective on ‘misconceptions’ regarding pediatric auditory processing disorder. Frontiers in Neurology, 10 (287), 1-4. (doi:10.3389/fneur.2019.00287).

Record type: Article

Abstract

In the perspective article “Common Misconceptions Regarding Pediatric Auditory Processing Disorder” (1), the authors attempt to rebut five common “misconceptions” of auditory processing disorder (APD), concerned that children with APD may receive inappropriate or limited management. They describe a chasm between increasing research on APD and the scarcity of “specialized clinics providing diagnosis and management of APD,” seeing that connection resulting in a failure to translate research into practice. We do not recognize this as a failure. In our opinion, the increasing research interest reflects greater recognition of the importance of evidence-based practice, together with the consolidation of a different perspective—that what is needed is increased collaboration between disciplines, rather than “specialized” audiology APD clinics where diagnosis is based solely on arbitrary audiological test batteries and criteria (2, 3).

There are several definitions of APD. The BSA, 2018 describe APD as being “characterized by poor perception of speech and non-speech sounds. It has its origins in impaired neural function, which may include both the afferent and efferent pathways of the central auditory nervous system (CANS), as well as other neural processing systems that provide “top down” modulation of the CANS. APD impacts on everyday life mainly through a reduced ability to listen, and therefore respond appropriately to speech and other sounds” (3). We share the concerns of Iliadou and Kiese-Himmel [(1); hereafter “the perspective article”] that children with listening difficulties in everyday life deserve proper diagnosis and management in order to prevent or limit their negative impact on academic and social skills and well-being. However, we do not share the perspective that APD has been shown to be a distinct diagnostic entity or that we should focus on traditional auditory testing procedures that lack evidence.

Our purpose here is to argue that the “misconceptions” identified in the perspective article are not misconceptions at all, and arise from the opinions of the authors rather than substantial evidence. We reframe those “misconceptions” in three discussion points: (1) APD as a separate diagnosis, (2) Auditory processing and cognitive skills, and (3) Quality of auditory processing tests.

Text
fneur-10-00287 - Version of Record
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
Download (123kB)

More information

Submitted date: 29 April 2018
Accepted/In Press date: 5 March 2019
e-pub ahead of print date: 26 March 2019
Published date: March 2019

Identifiers

Local EPrints ID: 421056
URI: https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/421056
ISSN: 1664-2295
PURE UUID: 22c81d6f-8170-4d29-931a-dc38a7151b53

Catalogue record

Date deposited: 21 May 2018 16:30
Last modified: 26 Mar 2019 17:31

Export record

Altmetrics

Contributors

Author: K Neijenhuis
Author: Nicole Campbell
Author: M. Cromb
Author: M.R. Luinge
Author: D.R. Moore
Author: S. Rosen
Author: E. de Wit

University divisions

Download statistics

Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.

View more statistics

Atom RSS 1.0 RSS 2.0

Contact ePrints Soton: eprints@soton.ac.uk

ePrints Soton supports OAI 2.0 with a base URL of https://eprints.soton.ac.uk/cgi/oai2

This repository has been built using EPrints software, developed at the University of Southampton, but available to everyone to use.

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive cookies on the University of Southampton website.

×