© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
The Importance of Modality Specificity in Diagnosing Central Auditory Processing Disorder
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
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Delicious 
Digg 
Facebook 
Reddit 
Technorati 
Twitter What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  K. R. V. Werff Auditory Dysfunction Among Long-Term Consequences of Mild Traumatic Brain Injury (mTBI) Hearing and Hearing Disorders: Research and Diagnostics, July 1, 2012; 16(1): 3 - 17. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 C. A. Miller Auditory Processing Theories of Language Disorders: Past, Present, and Future Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, July 1, 2011; 42(3): 309 - 319. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 J. Lagace, B. Jutras, and J.-P. Gagne Auditory Processing Disorder and Speech Perception Problems in Noise: Finding the Underlying Origin Am J Audiol, June 1, 2010; 19(1): 17 - 25. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|
|
|
|
|
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]
|
|