A Systematic Review & Metanalysis of Questionnaires Used for Auditory Processing Screening and Evaluation
Frontiers in Neurology
Samara, M., Thai-Van, H., et al. (2023).
Frontiers in Neurology, 14, 1243170.
This systematic review and meta-analysis investigate the accuracy of questionnaires for identifying individuals previously diagnosed with auditory processing disorder (APD).
Auditory Processing Disorder Working Group of the European Federation of Audiology Societies
From database inception to May 31, 2023
Published studies presenting clear diagnostic criteria and data specific to auditory processing (not further specified)
12
Twelve studies investigating auditory processing questionnaires (i.e., the Children’s Auditory Processing Performance Scale [CHAPPS], the Amsterdam Inventory for Auditory Disability and Handicap [AIAD], the Hyperacusis Questionnaire [HQ], the Speech, Spatial, and Qualities of Hearing Scale [SSQ], and the Auditory Processing Domains Questionnaire [APDQ]) found that all of the questionnaires demonstrated a strong effect size (<em>p</em><0.00001) for accurately separating individuals diagnosed with APD from individuals without a diagnosis. When separating individuals with APD from individuals with other clinical diagnoses (e.g., learning disabilities, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder), the CHAPPS, AIAD, SSQ, and HQ showed a small to medium effect size (<em>p</em>=0.51) for identifying greater deficits for the APD group; meanwhile, the APDQ inconsistently identified APD deficits. While the questionnaires show good agreement with an APD diagnosis established through psychoacoustic evaluation, the authors caution that questionnaires "may not well depict the degree or nature of hearing difficulties" (p. 10) due to differences in how individuals report their difficulties or attribution of communication difficulties to other factors (e.g., attention, interest). Additional research with larger samples or under-researched APD populations (e.g., adults) is warranted.
