Concurrent and Predictive Validity of an Early Language Screening Program (original) (raw)
Related papers
Detecting language problems: accuracy of five language screening instruments in preschool children
Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 2007
To identify a simple and effective screening instrument for language delays in 3-year-old children the reliability, validity, and accuracy of five screening instruments were examined. A postal questionnaire sent to parents of 11 423 children included the Dutch version of the General Language Screen (GLS), the Van Wiechen (VW) items, the Language Screening Instrument for 3-to 4-year-olds, consisting of a parent form (LSI-PF) and a child test (LSI-CT), and parents' own judgement of their child's language development on a visual analogue scale (VAS). The response rate was 78% or 8877 children. Reliability (internal consistency) was found to be acceptable (α α=0.67-0.72) for all instruments. Significant correlations between the screening instruments (r=0.29-0.55, p<0.01) indicated good concurrent validity. Accuracy was estimated by the sensitivity, specificity, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves against two reference tests based on parent report and specialists' judgement. If the test would classify approximately 5% of the population as screen-positive, the mean sensitivity was 50%; assigning between 20% and 30% of the population as screen-positive, the mean sensitivity was 77%. The sensitivity was lowest for the LSI-CT (range 43-62%), whereas short instruments like the LSI-PF, VW, and the one-item VAS exhibited high levels of sensitivity (range 50-86%). The area under the ROC curves, ranged from 0.75 to 0.87. Apparently, short and simple parent report instruments like the LSI-PF and the one-item VAS perform remarkably well in detecting language delays in preschool children.
Frontiers in Pediatrics, 2022
Objective: To assess the predictive validity and feasibility of the newly developed language screening tool, SPES-(Sprachentwicklungsscreening), for-year-old children in pediatric primary care. Methods: A prospective cohort study recruited , non-selected Germanspeaking children undergoing a regular well-baby checkup at the age of years. Thirty primary care pediatricians spread over urban and rural areas screened the children using a short parent-reported questionnaire and direct assessment of word comprehension. To validate the screening tool, language skills were assessed using a standardized language screening tool in the complete sample year later. Data of a random sample of children were analyzed. Feasibility of the screening tool was evaluated using questionnaires completed by the participating pediatricians. Results: The new screening tool, SPES-, demonstrated good diagnostic accuracy with AUC (Area under the Roc Curve) of. , a sensitivity of. , and specificity of. , using a parent-reported questionnaire (expressive vocabulary, two-word combinations, parental concerns) as stage , followed by a stage direct assessment of word comprehension by the pediatrician. The second stage was restricted to children who failed the parental screening. The screening identified children with high, moderate, and low risk of significant language deficits (SLD) at the age of years, permitting tailored followup assessment and parental counseling. Practicality and acceptability of the screening were mostly rated as high. Pediatricians regarded the availability of follow-up diagnostic services and parent guidance as most important for a general implementation of the new instrument. Conclusion: The language screening tool, SPES-, was valid for the identification of significant language deficits year later, and considered as feasible within primary pediatric care.
Neuropsychiatric Disease and Treatment, 2018
Purpose: To characterize language disorder and developmental profiles in children who screened positive for language delay but negative for autism at 2.5 years of age. Patients and methods: The first 100 children who screened positive for language delay-but negative for autism-in 2016 were assessed in detail by speech language pathologists. Parents completed a newly developed questionnaire covering eight domains-Motor, Executive functions, Perception, Memory, Language, Learning, Social skills and Child's behaviour-with impairment scored for each domain. Results: ICD-10 language disorder diagnoses were made in 87/100 children (29 girls, 58 boys). Of 52 children with mixed receptive-expressive language disorder, 32% had problems in other developmental areas according to the "global rating" in the impairment questions of the questionnaire. Of the 35 with expressive language disorder, 21% had problems in other areas according to the impairment questions. Thirteen children had isolated language delay with no other diagnoses according to the speech and language pathologists' assessment; however, 23% of them had problems according to the parental rating on the impairment questions. Conclusion: Most children screening positive for language delay but negative for autism at age 2.5 years were diagnosed with ICD-10 language disorder diagnoses. Parents in about one in four cases reported impairing problems within other developmental areas. Possible explanations for the findings are discussed.
Concurrent and Predictive Validity of Parent Reports of Child Language at Ages 2 and 3 Years
Child Development, 2005
The MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories (CDI; , parent reports about language skills, are being used increasingly in studies of theoretical and public health importance. This study (N = 113) correlated scores on the CDI at ages 2 and 3 years with scores at age 3 years on tests of cognition and receptive language and measures from parentchild conversation. Associations indicated reasonable concurrent and predictive validity. The findings suggest that satisfactory vocabulary scores at age 2 are likely to predict normal language skills at age 3, although some children with limited skills at age 3 will have had satisfactory scores at age 2. Many children with poor vocabulary scores at 2 will have normal skills at 3.
Journal of the Medical Association of Thailand = Chotmaihet thangphaet, 2015
OBJECTIVE To develop a parental questionnaire for screening children with delayed language development in primary care settings. MATERIAL AND METHOD Ramathibodi Language Development (RLD) questionnaire was developed and completed by groups of 40 typically developing children age 18 to 30 months old and 30 children with delayed language development. RESULTS The mean score was significantly lower in the delay language group (6.7 ± 1.9), comparing with the typically developing group (9.6 ± 0.7). The optimal ROC curve cut-off score was 8 with corresponding sensitivity and specificity were 98% and 72%, respectively. The corresponding area under the curve was 0.96 (95% CI = 0.92-0.99). CONCLUSION The RLD questionnaire was the promising language developmental screening instrument that easily utilized in well-child examination settings.
Predicting Language at 2 Years of Age: A Prospective Community Study
PEDIATRICS, 2007
OBJECTIVE. This article responds to evidence gaps regarding language impairment identified by the US Preventive Services Task Force in 2006. We examine the contributions of putative child, family, and environmental risk factors to language outcomes at 24 months of age.
Acta Paediatrica, 2019
Aim: We examined if routine Swedish language screening for developmental language disorder (DLD) carried out at three years of age could be performed as effectively six months earlier. Methods: This study observed 105 monolingual Swedish-speaking children (53% boys) aged 29-31 months at three Swedish child health centres. We compared their ability to combine three words, as per the existing protocol, and two words. They also underwent a comprehension task. Speech and language pathologists clinically assessed the children for DLD and their results were compared with the nurse-led screening. Results: The results for the three-word and two-word criterion were: sensitivity (100% versus 91%) specificity (81% versus 91%), positive predictive (38% versus 56%) and negative predictive value (100% versus 99%). The three-word criterion identified 29 children with possible DLD, including 11 cases later confirmed, and the two-word criterion identified 18 possible cases, including 10 confirmed cases. DLD was overrepresented in the 10% of children who did not cooperate with the nurse-led screening.