...
首页> 外文期刊>American journal of audiology >Response to the Letter to the Editor From Iliadou, Sirimanna, and Bamiou Regarding DeBonis (2015)
【24h】

Response to the Letter to the Editor From Iliadou, Sirimanna, and Bamiou Regarding DeBonis (2015)

机译:Iliadou,Sirimanna和Bamiou关于DeBonis致编辑的信(2015)

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

Purpose: The purpose of this letter is to respond to "Central Auditory Processing Disorder Is Classified in ICD-10 and H93.25 and Hearing Evaluation-Not Screening-Should Be Implemented in Children With Verified Communication and/or Listening Deficits" by Iliadou, Sirimanna, and Bamiou (2016). The methodology used involved a close reading of the concerns expressed by Iliadou et al. in view of the central auditory processing disorder (CAPD) literature and the stated purpose of my original article (DeBonis, 2015). The literature used included clinical practice guidelines, respected journals, and recognized authorities on the topic. Many of the objections stated by Iliadou et al. are not well founded (e.g., ICD-10, use of ASHA definition, effect of auditory intervention, lack of research for the model, bias of the article), but their statement that a complete hearing assessment is necessary for students with listening difficulties is an important one that I endorse completely. In conclusion, my original article remains an effective vehicle for discussion about the value of current tests of auditory processing and how to better help students who have listening difficulties.
机译:目的:来信的目的是回应Iliadou的“ ICD-10和H93.25中分类为中央听觉处理障碍,并且应在具有经过验证的沟通和/或听力缺陷的儿童中实施听力评估,而不是筛查,” Sirimanna和Bamiou(2016)。所使用的方法学涉及Iliadou等人表达的关注。鉴于中枢听觉加工障碍(CAPD)文献和我的原始文章(DeBonis,2015)所述目的。使用的文献包括临床实践指南,受尊敬的期刊以及有关该主题的公认权威。 Iliadou等人提出的许多反对意见。尚无充分依据(例如,ICD-10,使用ASHA定义,听觉干预的效果,模型研究不足,文章有偏见),但他们的陈述是,对于听力有障碍的学生,必须进行完整的听力评估我完全认可的重要一环。总之,我的原始文章仍然是讨论当前听觉处理测试的价值以及如何更好地帮助有听力障碍的学生的有效工具。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号