68
JCPSLP
Volume 16, Number 2 2014
Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology
Emanuel et al. (2011) who found that the use of pre-printed
checklists of recommendations was relatively common
among audiologists. Given that the SLPs scope of practice
often includes the interpretation of audiological reports for
parents and teachers (SPA, 2003), reporting is another area
in need of improved communication between professions.
Conclusions
The results of the present survey yield important information
for clinicians, university educators, and researchers
interested in screening and assessing for (C)APD. It showed
that a majority of sampled SLPs who see (C)APD cases in
Queensland:
•
favoured a definition of (C)APD that emphasised
difficulties processing basic acoustic information (i.e.,
sound) with potential flow-on effects to phonological
and linguistic processing, which, in turn, could cause
language and literacy impairments;
•
assess the language, literacy and/or behaviour of these
children while simultaneously referring to an audiologist
for a (C)APD assessment;
•
favour parent or teacher reports of classroom listening
difficulties as an indicator of the need to refer the child to
an audiologist;
•
are rarely asked by audiologists to contribute to (C)APD
cases;
•
find the audiology reports to be useful in regards to
diagnostics and the consideration of compensatory
strategies, environmental modifications and direct
treatments, but want these reports to be more
individualised.
Overall, these results highlight a need for better
communication between SLPs and audiologists in
by an audiologist for information about a child’s speech,
language, literacy and/or phonological awareness skills.
These findings are consistent with surveys of audiologists
that have overwhelmingly indicated that they do not involve
a multidisciplinary team when differentially diagnosing
(C)APD (Chermak, Silva, Nye, Basbrouck & Musiek,
2007 [77%]; Emanuel et al., 2011 [94%]). It should be
noted, however, that roughly the same number of SLPs
who reported never being contacted by an audiologist
regarding diagnosis also reported always referring a child
whom they suspect has (C)APD to an audiologist. It may
be, therefore, that audiologists are obtaining what they
deem to be sufficient information from the SLPs’ referral
documents. This is consistent with the results of Emanuel
(2011) indicating that most audiologists like to have
reports from other professionals before they diagnose
(C)APD. Regardless, while the audiologist’s diagnosis of
(C)APD may involve the collection of assessment results
from other professions, such as SLPs and psychologists,
SLPs do not appear to be involved in the process of
differential diagnosis. Clearly, as proposed by Dawes and
Bishop (2009), a more interdisciplinary approach to the
assessment of (C)APD is needed if differential diagnosis
is to be optimised, by separating (C)APD from disorders
of language and/or cognition and allowing more targeted
treatment of a child’s underlying deficits.
Nearly all SLPs reported reading the audiologist’s
report for children diagnosed with a (C)APD and most
found the information provided about the tests, the
diagnostic process, and the recommendations regarding
environmental modifications and compensatory strategies
useful. Many, however, expressed concern regarding
the generic nature of the reports and wanted more
individualised reporting. These findings are consistent with
Table 1. The SLPs’ approaches to screening and assessing for (C)APD
If referred a child with (C)APD, do
Yes
No
you assess language, literacy &/or
56
2
classroom behaviour? (n = 58)
If you suspect a child has (C)APD
Refer for (C)AP
Refer for (C)AP
Screen for (C)APD, Screen for (C)APD, Do not refer for
what do you generally do? (n = 57)
assessment and
assessment and refer for (C)AP
refer for (C)AP
(C)AP assessment
wait for results (1)
treat language/
assessment if
assessment if
and treat language/
literacy (34)
needed and wait
needed and treat
literacy (9)
for results (0)
language/literacy
(13)
Do you use any screening tools to
Yes
No
help identify (C)APD? (n = 56)
25
31
If you suspect a child has (C)APD,
Always
Usually
Sometimes
Occasionally
Never
do you refer to an audiologist?
23
10
12
8
2
(n = 55)
Do audiologists ask you to
Often
Sometimes
Occasionally
Never
contribute to (C)APD cases? (n = 51)
3
0
12
36
Usefulness of audiology reports:
Very useful
Useful
Somewhat useful
Not useful
Not sure
N/A
Diagnostics (n = 46)
17
16
10
2
1
0
Compensatory strategies (n = 45)
16
14
13
2
0
0
Environmental modification (n = 45)
16
14
13
2
0
0
Direct treatments (n = 44)
16
6
10
7
0
5
What additional information would
Individualised recommendations
Additional information (e.g.,
Greater clarity
you like from audiology reports
14
assessment tasks, assistive
3
(n = 20)
listening devices)
3
