JCPSLP July 2014_Vol16_no2

Table 1. The SLPs’ approaches to screening and assessing for (C)APD

If referred a child with (C)APD, do you assess language, literacy &/or classroom behaviour? (n = 58) If you suspect a child has (C)APD what do you generally do? (n = 57)

Yes

No

56

2

Refer for (C)AP assessment and wait for results (1)

Refer for (C)AP

Screen for (C)APD, Screen for (C)APD, Do not refer for

assessment and refer for (C)AP

refer for (C)AP assessment if needed and treat language/literacy (13)

(C)AP assessment and treat language/

treat language/

assessment if needed and wait

literacy (34)

literacy (9)

for results (0)

Do you use any screening tools to help identify (C)APD? (n = 56) If you suspect a child has (C)APD, do you refer to an audiologist?

Yes

No 31

25

Always

Usually

Sometimes

Occasionally

Never

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 16 16

16 14 14

10 13 13 10

2 2 2 7

1 0 0 0

0 0 0 5

Compensatory strategies (n = 45) Environmental modification (n = 45)

Direct treatments (n = 44)

6

What additional information would you like from audiology reports

Individualised recommendations

Additional information (e.g., assessment tasks, assistive

Greater clarity

14

3

(n = 20)

listening devices) 3

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

68

JCPSLP Volume 16, Number 2 2014

Journal of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology