Letter to the Editor: A Vigorous Protest

I am very disappointed that you published "Central Auditory Processing Disorders and Reduced Motivation : Three Case Studies" (J Am Acad Audiol 11:57-63). I agree that we need to be vigilant in our pursuit of excellence in testing but that vigilance should also extend to our published articles . This study contained major flaws. First, the authors stated that the children are representative of the population as a whole. The fact that the parents were seeking a second opinion means that the initial diagnosis had been called into question. This fact alone is not statistically representative of the population . In my experience, parents of children who have been diagnosed with central auditory processing disorder have always known that there was something wrong. Second, because of time constraints, only one subtest was used for the second opinion. Willeford, Katz, and Jerger have all stressed the importance of using a test battery. Obtaining different results on one subtest cannot invalidate an entire battery. It merely puts forward additional questions. Using the test data provided by the authors in Case 1, it was noted that the W22s are reduced. This alone would indicate the need for additional testing. If there are time constraints, make another appointment. Do not limit the quality of care . Last, contradicting another professional's diagnosis must be done with the utmost caution. Testing is a dynamic process. Each day a new piece of the puzzle can be added. Continued reassessment is necessary regardless of time constraints . Lisa Wildmo Bryan, Texas