misdiagnosed adhd as auditory processing disorder

#Misdiagnosed adhd as auditory processing disorder manual#

May request frequent repetition of presented information from speakers.Presents like s/he are ignoring the speaker.Requires increased processing time to respond to questions.Student presents with difficulty processing information efficiently If this diagnoses is so popular and so prevalent why is that major psychological and educational governing bodies such as American Psychiatric Association and the US Department of Education still do not officially recognize it?Ī. Already many of you can see the beginnings of the controversy.

#Misdiagnosed adhd as auditory processing disorder manual#

However, presently, (C)APD is not a mainstream diagnostic classifications in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edition (DSM-5) nor is part of an actual educational classification in United States. (C)APD is currently rampantly diagnosed in the United States, Australia and New Zealand, and is even beginning to be diagnosed in the United Kingdom (Dawes & Bishop, 2009).

The diagnosis of (C)APD may often detract from identifying legitimate language based deficits in the areas of comprehension, expression, social communication and literacy development, as the result of which these areas will not get adequate therapeutic attention by relevant professionalsĪ few words on (C)APD popularity, well sort of:.

The diagnosis of (C)APD is appealing because it presents a more attractive explanation than the diagnoses of language and learning disabilities for children with processing deficits.

Presently there’s no no clear performance criteria to make the (C)APD diagnosis.

(C)APD testing is hugely influenced by non-auditory factors grounded in higher order cognitive and linguistic processes.

Numerous non-linguistic based disorders can be misdiagnosed as (C)APD without differential diagnosis.

Auditory deficits don’t cause speech, language, and academic learning difficulties.

General audiological recommendations for accommodations (e.g., FM systems, etc.) are frequently unnecessary, and may actually exacerbate the isolation effect while in no way alleviating the student’s deficits, which require direct and targeted intervention.

Recommendations for specific costly auditory training programs such Auditory Integration Training (AIT), The Listening Program (TLP), Fast ForWord® (FFW) at the exclusion of all others, without the provision of a detailed breakdown of the child’s deficit areas often cause an incursion of unnecessary expenses for parents and professionals and are found to be INEFFECTIVE or limitedly effective in the long run.

Recommendations for training deficits specific areas such as working memory, auditory discrimination, auditory sequencing, etc., do not functionally transfer into practice and fail to create generalization affect.

Subsequent to the diagnosis, confusion ensues regarding the type, frequency, and duration of service provision (typically performed by the SLP) as well as what those services should actually constitute

There is a strong desire for the (C)APD label on the part of those encountering processing difficulties, yet once the label is given no direct/specific auditory interventions are provided by the audiologist.

So why the lengthy disclaimer? Because today via the use of the latest research publications, I would like discuss the fact that the diagnosis of Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) or what some may know as Central Auditory Processing Disorder (CAPD) is NOT valid! Today’s post will make a number of people quite angry and is intended to be controversial! Why? Because controversy promotes critical thinking, broadens perspectives, allows to acquire better knowledge of the construct in question as well as ultimately guides better decision making on the part of the parties in question. Freebies Smart Speech Therapy Freebies!Įarn 10 Reward Points by commenting the blog post.