↓ Skip to main content

Common Misconceptions Regarding Pediatric Auditory Processing Disorder

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Neurology, January 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (67th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (75th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
6 X users

Readers on

mendeley
60 Mendeley
citeulike
4 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Common Misconceptions Regarding Pediatric Auditory Processing Disorder
Published in
Frontiers in Neurology, January 2018
DOI 10.3389/fneur.2017.00732
Pubmed ID
Authors

Vasiliki Iliadou, Christiane Kiese-Himmel

Abstract

Pediatric hearing evaluation based on pure tone audiometry does not always reflect how a child hears in everyday life. This practice is inappropriate when evaluating the difficulties children experiencing auditory processing disorder (APD) in school or on the playground. Despite the marked increase in research on pediatric APD, there remains limited access to proper evaluation worldwide. This perspective article presents five common misconceptions of APD that contribute to inappropriate or limited management in children experiencing these deficits. The misconceptions discussed are (1) the disorder cannot be diagnosed due to the lack of a gold standard diagnostic test; (2) making generalizations based on profiles of children suspected of APD and not diagnosed with the disorder; (3) it is best to discard an APD diagnosis when another disorder is present; (4) arguing that the known link between auditory perception and higher cognition function precludes the validity of APD as a clinical entity; and (5) APD is not a clinical entity. These five misconceptions are described and rebutted using published data as well as critical thinking on current available knowledge on APD.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 6 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 60 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 60 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 10 17%
Professor 6 10%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 5 8%
Researcher 4 7%
Other 13 22%
Unknown 17 28%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 8 13%
Social Sciences 5 8%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 7%
Engineering 4 7%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 5%
Other 15 25%
Unknown 21 35%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 18 February 2020.
All research outputs
#6,973,689
of 23,018,998 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Neurology
#4,406
of 11,914 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#142,511
of 441,019 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Neurology
#54
of 223 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,018,998 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 11,914 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 7.3. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 441,019 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 223 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.