TY - JOUR
T1 - Efficacy of auditory interventions for central auditory processing disorder
T2 - A response to Fey et al. (2011)
AU - Bellis, Teri James
AU - Chermak, Gail D.
AU - Weihing, Jeffrey
AU - Musiek, Frank E.
PY - 2012/7
Y1 - 2012/7
N2 - Purpose: To provide a commentary on "Auditory Processing Disorder and Auditory/Language Interventions: An Evidence- Based Systematic Review" by Fey et al. (2011). Method: Examination of the conclusions drawn by Fey et al. (2011) in the context of the American Academy of Audiology (2010a, 2010b) and American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2005a, 2005b, 2005c) guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of auditory processing disorder, the evidence cited therein, and other pertinent published reports. Results: The review provided by Fey et al. (2011) is limited due to the exclusion of pertinent efficacy studies from their analysis, inclusion of studies that did not employ strictly auditory-based therapies, and lack of well-defined experimental groups in many of the studies cited. Further, the questions posed by their literature review may not have addressed the efficacy of true auditory interventions in the remediation of auditory difficulties in children who have primary deficits in central auditory processing. Conclusion: A more comprehensive review than that done by Fey et al. (2011) would have better addressed the fundamental question of the efficacy of direct remediation activities for children with central auditory processing disorder.
AB - Purpose: To provide a commentary on "Auditory Processing Disorder and Auditory/Language Interventions: An Evidence- Based Systematic Review" by Fey et al. (2011). Method: Examination of the conclusions drawn by Fey et al. (2011) in the context of the American Academy of Audiology (2010a, 2010b) and American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (2005a, 2005b, 2005c) guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of auditory processing disorder, the evidence cited therein, and other pertinent published reports. Results: The review provided by Fey et al. (2011) is limited due to the exclusion of pertinent efficacy studies from their analysis, inclusion of studies that did not employ strictly auditory-based therapies, and lack of well-defined experimental groups in many of the studies cited. Further, the questions posed by their literature review may not have addressed the efficacy of true auditory interventions in the remediation of auditory difficulties in children who have primary deficits in central auditory processing. Conclusion: A more comprehensive review than that done by Fey et al. (2011) would have better addressed the fundamental question of the efficacy of direct remediation activities for children with central auditory processing disorder.
KW - Auditory training
KW - Central auditory processing
KW - Intervention
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84863819692&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84863819692&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1044/0161-1461(2012/11-0085)
DO - 10.1044/0161-1461(2012/11-0085)
M3 - Review article
C2 - 22778089
AN - SCOPUS:84863819692
SN - 0161-1461
VL - 43
SP - 381
EP - 386
JO - Language, speech, and hearing services in schools
JF - Language, speech, and hearing services in schools
IS - 3
ER -