Multidisciplinary assessment and interventions for childhood auditory processing disorder (APD) and listening difficulties (LiD).

ABSTRACT

Purpose: Auditory processing disorder (APD) has been studied in both research and clinic settings, but the relation between the two has not been addressed. In a longitudinal research study (SICLiD), we found that children with clinically normal audiometry who had caregiver-reported listening difficulties (LiD), with or without clinically assessed APD, performed poorly on both listening and cognitive tests. Specific questions asked here were, for the children with LiD, what other neurodevelopmental clinical conditions were identified, what interventions were used by different clinical providers, and how clinical practice was predicted by research results. Methods: Study setting was a large, research-led, tertiary pediatric hospital. Electronic medical records of 74 children aged 6-13 years, recruited into SICLiD and assigned to an LiD group based on a validated and reliable caregiver report (ECLiPS), were independently reviewed. Focus was on clinical assessments and interventions following appointments provided in the Hospital Divisions of Audiology, Occupational Therapy, Psychology (Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics), and Speech-Language Pathology (SLP), prior to participation in SICLiD. Descriptive statistics on clinical encounters, identified conditions, and interventions were compared with quantitative, standardized performance on SICLiD assessments of listening and cognitive function. SICLiD z-scores were compared for participants with and without each clinical condition using univariate and logistic prediction analyses. Results: Most (86%) of the children with LiD had been evaluated by at least one clinical service. Overall, 24 assessment categories related to LiD, including APD, were identified. Most common conditions were attention (32%), language (28%), hearing (18%), anxiety (16%), and autism spectrum (6%) disorders. Performance on SICLiD measures varied significantly between providers, conditions, and interventions. Significant relationships between SICLiD and clinical conditions were mostly caregiver-reported items from the ECLiPS or the Children's Communication Checklist (CCC-2). Other significant correlations were scarce, but included the SCAN composite score, which predicted clinical language and attention, but not other auditory abilities or APD. SICLiD data combined with caregiver reports provided reliable predictions of all clinical conditions except APD. Conclusions: The variety of disciplines, assessments, conditions and interventions revealed here supports previous studies showing that LiD and APD are multifaceted problems of neurodevelopment. Comparisons between clinical- and research-based assessments suggest a diagnostic path that prioritizes caregiver reports and selected psychometric tests for screening and diagnostic purposes.