Central Auditory Processes and Test Measures

TLDR

The paper reviews theoretical issues of central auditory processing disorders, referencing the ASHA 1996 statement, and proposes refined terminology based on recent research. The authors recommend a simplified nomenclature and revisions to the ASHA 1996 guidelines to streamline diagnosis, subclassification, and intervention for CAPD. A confirmatory factor analysis of Domitz and Schow’s CAPD test battery, including MAPA, was conducted to support the nomenclature. The CFA confirmed a four‑factor model of CAPD and remained robust when SCAN subtests were added.

Abstract

The theoretical issues surrounding central auditory processing disorders (CAPD) are reviewed here, especially with reference to the central auditory behavioral processes and the auditory test measures as prescribed in the ASHA (1996, American Journal of Audiology, 5(2), 41-54) statement on CAPD. A simplified nomenclature is recommended that directly relates process and test measure to facilitate the diagnostic process in CAPD. This new terminology closely follows the ASHA (1996, American Journal of Audiology, 5(2), 41-54) document, but provides some refinement based on recent research in CAPD. To support this recommendation, a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to the findings of Domitz and Schow (2000, American Journal of Audiology), who proposed use of a battery of CAPD tests, the Multiple Auditory Processing Assessment (MAPA) for testing school children. The CFA was found to reinforce the four-factor model, which clearly emerged in the exploratory factor analysis of Domitz and Schow. The model was found to be reasonably consistent even when subtests from the SCAN were included in the analysis. Refinement and revision of ASHA (1996, American Journal of Audiology, 5(2), 41-54) is recommended to facilitate diagnosis, subclassification, and intervention for CAPD.