Letter to the Editor: An Affront to Scientific Inquiry Re: Moore, D. R. (2018) Editorial: Auditory Processing Disorder (CROSBI ID 280157)
Prilog u časopisu | Pismo uredniku
Podaci o odgovornosti
Illiadou, V.V....[et al.]
engleski
Letter to the Editor: An Affront to Scientific Inquiry Re: Moore, D. R. (2018) Editorial: Auditory Processing Disorder
It was with great concern that we read David Moore’s editorial on auditory processing disorder (APD ; Moore 2018). Moore begins his editorial noting that in a “highly detailed critique” of a recent submission on early diagnosis of APD, two of three reviewers questioned whether an earlier diagnosis would be useful “because the status of APD is so controversial” or “difficult to verify.” Moore uses these anonymous reviewers’ comments to justify, based on a few selected papers, several of which are opinion papers rather than research or systematic reviews, that, effective immediately, “articles that either implicitly or explicitly assume APD as a single diagnostic characteristic of the auditory system likely will not be considered for publication.” This Editorial Board policy was adopted without presenting research (and perspectives) that present compelling counter-arguments that would refute such a policy. Moore states that this new Ear and Hearing policy is “endorsed by the whole Board ; ” however, the editorial is signed only by Moore. Moreover, as clinicians trained in diagnosis, we do not understand Moore’s conflation of the disorder of auditory processing and a “diagnostic characteristic.” According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, DSM-5 (American Psychiatric Association 2013), a disorder is defined as “a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning”(p. 20). Thus, by definition, a disorder is not a “diagnostic characteristic.” We provide scientific evidence in this rebuttal that challenges a multitude of Moore’s statements and conclusions used to support his opinion and this indefensible editorial policy. We note the considerable adverse consequences of this policy for scientific inquiry and research, dissemination of scientific knowledge, and ultimately good patient care, and we conclude by urging the Editorial Board to reverse this biased policy.
Auditory processing disorder
nije evidentirano
nije evidentirano
nije evidentirano
nije evidentirano
nije evidentirano
nije evidentirano