PP1110 - Clinical Utilization of the Auditory Processing Domain Questionnaire

Abstract:
Many questionnaires could be utilized in conjunction with auditory processing disorder (APD) testing. This poster will focus on the clinical utilization of the Auditory Processing Domain Questionnaire (APDQ) in conjunction with clinical APD testing. The researchers will discuss findings from a case series, to evaluate the accuracy of the APDQ predictions in relationship to the outcomes of APD test results.

Summary:
An Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) is a general term used that encompasses an array of different auditory challenges that an individual might experience. Typically, APD impairs a person’s ability to process auditory information in the central auditory nervous system, despite having normal hearing thresholds and is not a result of other higher-order cognitive, language, or related disorders (ASHA, 2005). APD can co-occur with other disorders like ADHD, Dyslexia, and/or a learning disability. It is important to be aware of how to distinguish APD from other diagnoses and/ or how they can work together to affect the child/person holistically. The Auditory Processing Disorder Questionnaire (APDQ) was developed with a holistic approach in mind to help accurately refer children for a full APD evaluation (O’Hara & Mealings, 2018). The questionnaire is answered by a parent or guardian and is scored by a clinician (O’Hara & Mealings, 2018).

In this research project, previous patient information and APD test results from the Speech and Hearing Clinic were analyzed and compared to the APDQ predictive risk factors. To date, 6/20 cases in the series have been reviewed of APD evaluations for individuals between the ages of 7 to 17 years old that whose parents/guardians completed the APDQ. The researchers hypothesized that the APDQ predictive risk factors would be in good agreement with the APD test results. Initial pilot data from 6/20 charts reviewed found that the results showed that there was only 1 participant who was diagnosed with APD where the APDQ predicted they were at risk for APD. 3 participants were diagnosed with APD and the APDQ predicted that they were at risk for attention issues. There was 1 participant who did not receive an APD diagnosis and the APDQ predicted that they were at risk for attention issues. Lastly, there was 1 participant who was diagnosed with APD and the APDQ predicted a primary risk of language difficulties. Overall, there was only one diagnosis that was predicted by the APDQ. Others all had primary risk factors of attention and language issues. Further chart reviews will be completed before the poster presentation to report medical statistics and a comprehensive review of the case series. This will allow the comparison of the APDQ’s predictions and APD test results, along with including any prior diagnoses from the patient’s case history.

Clinically, if the additional chart reviews find good agreement between the APDQ’s predictions and APD test results, then the APDQ could be recommended as an APD screener.