The CHAPS, SIFTER, and TAPS–R as Predictors of (C)AP Skills and (C)APD

<jats:sec><jats:title>Purpose</jats:title><jats:p>In this study, the authors investigated the relationships between 3 tests used to screen for (central) auditory processing disorder ([C]APD)—the Children’s Auditory Performance Scale (CHAPS; W. J. Smoski, M. A. Brunt, & J. C. Tannahill, 1998), the Screening Instrument for Targeting Educational Risk (SIFTER; K. Anderson, 1989), and the Test of Auditory Perceptual Skills—Revised (TAPS–R; M. Y. Gardner, 1997)—and 4 tests used to diagnostically assess for (C)APD: Low-Pass Filtered Speech (LPFS), Competing Sentences (CS), Two-Pair Dichotic Digits (DD), and Frequency Patterns With Linguistic Report (FP).</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Method</jats:title><jats:p>The screening and diagnostic (C)APD tests results of 104 children (71 boys, 33 girls) aged 6.9–14.3 years were reviewed following their attendance at a university clinic in Brisbane, Australia.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Results</jats:title><jats:p>Pearson’s product–moment correlation coefficient analysis showed weak (<jats:italic>r</jats:italic>= .22,<jats:italic>p</jats:italic>< .05) to moderate (<jats:italic>r</jats:italic>= .47,<jats:italic>p</jats:italic>< .01) correlations predominantly between the short-term and working memory test results of the TAPS–R and the DD and FP test results of the (C)AP test battery. Linear and binary logistic regression analyses showed a poor ability of the CHAPS, SIFTER, and TAPS–R test results to predict the individual LPFS, CS, DD, or FP test results or the overall risk for (C)APD.</jats:p></jats:sec><jats:sec><jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title><jats:p>The CHAPS, SIFTER, and TAPS–R should be used to highlight concerns about a child but not to determine whether a diagnostic (C)AP assessment is particularly warranted.</jats:p></jats:sec>