AJA
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

American Journal of Audiology Vol.14 112-123 December 2005. doi:10.1044/1059-0889(2005/012)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Cacace, A. T.
Right arrow Articles by McFarland, D. J.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Cacace, A. T.
Right arrow Articles by McFarland, D. J.

The Importance of Modality Specificity in Diagnosing Central Auditory Processing Disorder

Anthony T. Cacace 1 and Dennis J. McFarland 2

1 Albany Medical College, Albany, NY
2 Wadsworth Laboratories, New York State Health Department, Albany

cacacea{at}mail.amc.edu

Purpose: This article argues for the use of modality specificity as a unifying framework by which to conceptualize and diagnose central auditory processing disorder (CAPD). The intent is to generate dialogue and critical discussion in this area of study.

Method: Research in the cognitive, behavioral, and neural sciences that relates to the concept of modality specificity was reviewed and synthesized.

Results: Modality specificity has a long history as an organizing construct within a diverse collection of mainstream scientific disciplines. The principle of modality specificity was contrasted with the unimodal inclusive framework, which holds that auditory tests alone are sufficient to make the CAPD diagnosis. Evidence from a large body of data demonstrated that the unimodal framework was unable to delineate modality-specific processes from more generalized dysfunction; it lacked discriminant validity and resulted in an incomplete assessment. Consequently, any hypothetical model resulting from incomplete assessments or potential therapies that are based on indeterminate diagnoses are themselves questionable, and caution should be used in their application.

Conclusions: Improving specificity of diagnosis is an imperative core issue to the area of CAPD. Without specificity, the concept has little explanatory power. Because of serious flaws in concept and design, the unimodal inclusive framework should be abandoned in favor of a more valid approach that uses modality specificity.

Key Words: central auditory processing disorder, modality specificity

Submitted on February 8, 2005
Accepted on June 10, 2005




This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Perspectives on AudiologyHome page
S. J. Brannen
Expand Your Practice: Add (Central) Auditory Processing Services
Perspectives on Audiology, August 1, 2008; 4(1): 4 - 8.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AJSLPHome page
D. A. DeBonis and D. Moncrieff
Auditory Processing Disorders: An Update for Speech-Language Pathologists
Am J Speech Lang Pathol, February 1, 2008; 17(1): 4 - 18.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AJAHome page
B. Jutras, M. Loubert, J.-L. Dupuis, C. Marcoux, V. Dumont, and M. Baril
Applicability of Central Auditory Processing Disorder Models
Am J Audiol, December 1, 2007; 16(2): 100 - 106.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AJAHome page
W. D. Keller, K. L. Tillery, and S. L. McFadden
Auditory Processing Disorder in Children Diagnosed With Nonverbal Learning Disability
Am J Audiol, December 1, 2006; 15(2): 108 - 113.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 2005 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.