Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

Central auditory processes and test measures: ASHA 1996 revisited.

R L Schow1, J A Seikel, G D Chermak

  • 1Idaho State University, Pocatello, USA. schorona@isu.edu

American Journal of Audiology
|February 24, 2001
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Managing Central Auditory Processing Disorders in Children and Youth.

American journal of audiology·2015
Same author

Aural Rehabilitation by ASHA Audiologists: 1980-1990.

American journal of audiology·2015
Same author

Dynamics of Collaborative Consultation With Families.

American journal of audiology·2015
Same author

Three Commonly Asked Questions About Central Auditory Processing Disorders: Assessment.

American journal of audiology·2015
Same author

A new CAPD battery--multiple auditory processing assessment: factor analysis and comparisons with SCAN.

American journal of audiology·2001
Same author

Implications from factor analysis for central auditory processing disorders.

American journal of audiology·2000

This study recommends a simplified naming system for central auditory processing disorders (CAPD) tests to improve diagnosis. A confirmatory factor analysis supports a four-factor model for CAPD assessment in children.

Area of Science:

  • Audiology
  • Neuroscience
  • Speech and Hearing Sciences

Background:

  • Central Auditory Processing Disorders (CAPD) present theoretical challenges in diagnosis and classification.
  • Existing auditory test measures and behavioral processes require clearer linkage for effective clinical application.
  • The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) 1996 statement provides a framework but needs refinement based on current research.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To review theoretical issues in CAPD, focusing on behavioral processes and auditory test measures.
  • To propose a simplified nomenclature that directly links auditory processing tests to their underlying processes.
  • To refine the diagnostic process for CAPD through improved terminology and classification.

Main Methods:

Related Experiment Videos

  • A review of theoretical issues and existing literature on CAPD was conducted.
  • A confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) was applied to data from Domitz and Schow's (2000) study on the Multiple Auditory Processing Assessment (MAPA).
  • The CFA examined the robustness of a proposed four-factor model for CAPD assessment, including subtests from the SCAN battery.

    • Main Results:

    • The CFA reinforced a clear four-factor model for CAPD, consistent with previous exploratory factor analysis.
    • The proposed model demonstrated reasonable consistency, even when incorporating additional auditory processing test data.
    • The findings support the utility of a structured approach to classifying CAPD based on underlying auditory processes.

    Conclusions:

    • A simplified nomenclature for CAPD is recommended to enhance diagnostic clarity and efficiency.
    • Refinement of the ASHA (1996) guidelines is suggested to better facilitate CAPD diagnosis, subclassification, and intervention.
    • The study provides empirical support for a factor-based model in understanding and assessing central auditory processing.