{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.041911148365465216, 'fraction_numerical': 0.016764459346186086, 'mean_word_length': 5.154639175257732, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Using different criteria to diagnose (central) auditory processing disorder: how big a difference does it make?

PURPOSE
To quantify how 9 different diagnostic criteria affected potential (central) auditory processing disorder ([C]APD) diagnoses in a large sample of children referred for (central) auditory processing ([C]AP) assessment.


METHOD
A file review was conducted on 150 children (94 boys and 56 girls; ages 7.0-15.6 years) with normal peripheral hearing who had completed a (C)AP assessment involving low-pass filtered speech, competing sentences, 2-pair dichotic digits, and frequency patterns with linguistic and nonlinguistic report. Each child was classified as having or not having (C)APD based on 9 different sets of diagnostic criteria drawn from published technical reports, position statements, and selected research.


RESULTS
The rates of potential (C)APD diagnosis ranged from 7.3% for the strictest criteria to 96.0% for the most lenient criteria.


CONCLUSIONS
Until greater consensus is reached, any diagnosis of (C)APD should be qualified by an explicit statement of the criteria used. Calls to abandon the use of (C)APD as a global label should also be supported.