Validation of the Central Auditory Processing Self-Perception Questionnaire (QAPAC) applied to students, parents, and teachers.
Beatriz Lopes Tambascia, Nádia Giulian de Carvalho, Maria Francisca Colella-Santos and 1 others
The QAPAC questionnaire differentiated children with and without school difficulties across all three respondent versions.
Teacher scores were the most accurate for flagging CAPD risk, but four children with confirmed CAPD and no academic complaints were not flagged by the tool.
Key findings
1Children without school complaints (G1) scored significantly higher than children with school difficulties (G2) in all three QAPAC versions (student, parent, teacher), p<0.001.
2The most balanced cutoff was 44.5 for the student QAPAC (sensitivity 61.8%, specificity 63.2%) and 42.5 for the teacher QAPAC (sensitivity 61.8%, specificity 78.9%).
3In the group with school difficulties, all children with confirmed CAPD were classified as at-risk in at least one QAPAC version. In the group without school complaints, four children with confirmed CAPD were not flagged by any version.
Still to come
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
Single site: one public school in São Paulo, so results may not generalise to other educational settings or languages. Group assignment was based on school records of academic performance and remedial classes, not on a formal academic or cognitive assessment, which the authors acknowledge may make the groups more heterogeneous than intended. The sensitivity and specificity analysis was limited to 87 children aged 6 to 8 because only 20 of the 107 stage-2 participants were aged 9 to 10. Sensitivity at the balanced cutoff is 61.8% in both versions, below the 70% threshold the authors cite as ideal for screening tools. Four children with confirmed CAPD and no academic complaints were not flagged by any QAPAC version, so a passing score cannot exclude CAPD. Cross-sectional design: the study captures one time point and cannot speak to whether the QAPAC tracks change over time or after intervention.
Declared interests
Funded by FAPESP (grants 18/14055-5 and 19/26454-4), a Brazilian state research agency. No industry funding, no author conflicts of interest declared.
The easy way to misread this
Do not treat a passing QAPAC score as evidence that a child does not have CAPD. The sensitivity at the balanced cutoff is 61.8%, and four children with a confirmed CAPD diagnosis and no academic complaints were not flagged by any version of the questionnaire. The authors state the tool is a screening instrument to be used alongside a full auditory assessment battery, not as a standalone diagnostic.
Summarised by AI from the full paper, without a clinician reviewing it. Check it against the source before it changes what you do. Read it on PubMed →