In 2000, it was recommended that "central" be removed from "central auditory processing" to emphasize interactions at peripheral and central sites (Jerger & Musiek, 2000). The 2005 technical paper also refines the definition of (C)AP by being the first to place the word "central" in parentheses. Pursuing additional education and/or training is recommended in the 2005 document. These papers state that education, training, and experience are all necessary for the audiologist performing (C)AP evaluations. The position paper and technical paper, focus on audiologists' knowledge base of (C)AP. The document augments the original document by more clearly defining the role of the audiologist in (C)AP assessment. These inadequacies are addressed in ASHA's 2005 technical paper on (C)APD. Taken together, these reports provide documentation and insight as to why audiologists experience apprehension regarding (C)AP testing. The majority (65 audiologists) of those who responded did not feel they had a sound knowledge base for (C)AP testing, which was reflective of them taking the "101" seminar. Of the 86 audiologists who responded, 22 said they were not ready, 10 said they were ready because they had to do the testing, 33 said they were ready but needed assistance, 12 said they were firmly ready and able to do the testing, and 9 said they were confident in their ability to test. Most recently, a webinar on AudiologyOnline (Erickson, 2008), asked participants to rate their level of readiness (or ability) in performing (C)AP evaluations. In addition, most audiologists reported fewer than five clinical hours performing (C)AP evaluations during their education. (1998) queried audiologists about their graduate school education and found that 78% of audiologists were less than 50% satisfied with their school's coursework in the area of (C)AP. She also speculated that most work sites did not have electrophysiologic test equipment and therefore, were unable to perform any of those tests (e.g., middle latency response (MLR) testing). Emanuel indicated that this may be due to the lack of supporting literature for the tests (most audiologists used the SCAN-C, which comes with a manual). Emanuel (2002) found that none of the 192 responding audiologists followed the recommended minimum (C)AP test battery outlined in a Bruton conference in 2000 (Jerger & Musiek, 2000). This is valuable information because audiologists seem to have some trepidation when considering and performing (C)AP evaluations. The purpose of this document was to update and augment the 1996 ASHA position statement and to help guide audiologists in the diagnosis (i.e., selecting the necessary tools to accurately perform (C)AP evaluations) and intervention (i.e., selecting the type of therapy) of (C)APD. In 2005, the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA) approved its working group document on (C)AP (ASHA, 2005). This article will discuss information from that document, as well as provide clinical examples to elaborate upon it. Nearly a decade later, ASHA updated that statement with a working group document that contains recommendations to guide audiologists in assessing children for (C)APD. In 1996, the American Speech-Language Hearing Association (ASHA) wrote a consensus statement on central auditory processing, or (C)AP (ASHA, 1996). Additionally, it is difficult for audiologists to start this testing in their clinics, because no single test battery has been identified as being the gold standard. Surveys indicate that audiologists' knowledge and skills in this area are lacking. The assessment of (central) auditory processing disorders, (C)APDS, is an aspect of audiology with which many clinicians seem to struggle, especially when working with children.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |