ArticleCoDAS2026
Validation and standardization of the Scale of Self-Perception of Central Auditory Processing Skills (EAPAC) - expanded.
Article in CoDAS, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo validate and standardize the online application of the Scale of Self-Perception of Central Auditory Processing Skills (EAPAC) - expanded for Brazilian adults.
methodsThe EAPAC was expanded and answered by 1,274 Brazilian individuals aged 18 to 59 years. Of these, 116 subjects underwent neuropsychological and auditory evaluation, and 63 were selected to answer the scale at a second time point. Those with any type and degree of hearing loss, history of speech-language-hearing therapy for central auditory processing disorder, and psychiatric and/or neurological alteration were excluded. Descriptive analysis of the variables, exploratory factor analysis, and ROC curve were performed for validation and standardization. The Wilcoxon test was used to compare the responses of the subjects who answered the scale at two time points.
resultsAfter exploratory factor analysis, five questions were excluded, as they did not correlate with the scale domains. The ROC curves, constructed considering the presence of auditory processing disorder and the result by auditory processes, did not indicate significant values. Thus, the scale presented fragile sensitivity and specificity values. There was no significant difference in the subjects' responses to the scale between the two time points.
conclusionThe expanded scale did not present adequate psychometric standards for identifying the risk for central auditory processing disorder, but it proved useful for investigating auditory complaints in everyday tasks, thus helping to select strategies to minimize the negative impact of the difficulties mentioned.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.