Using Different Criteria to Diagnose (Central) Auditory Processing Disorder: How Big a Difference Does It Make?

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.