Language Screening Research Articles

The Effects of Adding Dynamic Assessment Components to a Computerized Preschool Language Screening Test

Currently available screening tools and procedures are lacking in one or more of the criteria necessary for early identification of potential language impairment in children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. This article addresses the need to (a) explore the effectiveness of a new version of KIDTALK with preschoolers, including an additional ethnic/ linguistic group in the sample, and (b) determine the utility of adding more dynamic assessment features to the test. Results warranted further enhancement of this tool by incorporating dy namic assessment components throughout the test and continued investigation of its validity with culturally and linguistically diverse preschoolers.

Testing Chinese Learners of English for Language Learning Difficulties By the Linguistic Coding Deficit/Difference Hypothesis

Ganschow and Sparks (1991), reckoning on the correctness of their Linguistic Coding Deficit/Difference Hypothesis (LCDH) to attribute the main source of foreign language learning difficulties to language- based problems, rather than to affective variables, attempted to extend its validity by devising a Foreign Language Screening Instrument for Colleges (FLSI-C) in the USA. The author of this study here proposes to test whether the hypothesis holds for language learning difficulties among Chinese-speaking college students learning English as a foreign language (FL) in Taiwan, and presents evidence for the following two propositions: (1) that a modified Chinese language version of the FLSI-C is a valid and reliable instrument, and (2) that the high-risk and no-risk students identified by the modified instrument differ on the Chinese Language Aptitude Test (CLAT) and, according to self-reports, on the Foreign Language Classroom Anxiety Scale (FLCAS) developed by Horwitz et al. These propositions are accordingly vindicated and lead the author to affirm the validity of the LCDH for interpreting difficulties encountered by Chinese college learners of English.

A Computerized Screening Instrument of Language Learnability

The demand for efficient, psychometrically sound, culturally and linguistically neutral tools for predicting which children are at risk for language learning disorders has increased over the last decade. Traditional screening instruments have had questionable validity for diverse populations, and culturally and linguistically sensitive, nontraditional assessment procedures typically have not been considered efficient for screening purposes. This article presents further analyses of a pilot study that examined the effectiveness of a computerized language screening instrument for multicultural children. Results suggest that because of its computerization and language learnability features, this innovative instrument may be an effective alternative to currently available screening procedures.

Speech and language screening for audiologists.

Speech and language screening by audiologists is not new, although few audiologists screen speech and language, which should be an integral component of the audiological evaluation. This article considers ASHA's views about speech and language screening by audiologists, screening tests available to audiologists, and the training of audiologists to screen speech and language.

Developing a Language Screening Test for Arabic-Speaking Children

This report gives an account of general and specific issues associated with developing an Arabic-language screening test for children aged between 3 and 12 years. Challenges, dilemmas and stages in the developmental process are discussed. The development of the Arabic Language Screening Test: Preschool and School Age illustrates the process. Issues and stages included: (1) arriving at a consensus about scope and purpose; (2) conceptualizing tasks and items; (3) specifying item content and structure; (4) field-testing the screening tool in a circumscribed environment; (5) developing a robust scoring and interpretation system for determining Pass or Fail, and (6) establishing the degree of accuracy in differentiating children with and without language disorders. The product is a screening test of verbal and related nonverbal abilities with parallel components for children of preschool (3–5 years) and elementary school age (6–12 years). Normative data were collected for 750 Arabic-speaking children in Jordan and Palestine, distributed fairly equally between the ages of 3 and 12 years. Normative means increased with age and standard deviations decreased. Interscorer agreement (99%), internal consistency (Cronbach alpha = 0.98) and diagnostic sensitivity (over 90% accuracy) were high. Constraints and limitations in the development of the test are described and discussed from both objective and personal perspectives.

Improving the positive predictive value of screening for developmental language disorder.

In a previous study, we reported the results of an early language screening program in which 306 children were screened using a parent-report questionnaire sent through the mail (Klee et al., 1998). A sample of the children screened were given clinical evaluations within a month of screening (n = 64) and again 1 year later (n = 36). Although the screening program correctly identified 91% of 2-year-olds with language delay, it produced a large number of over-referrals. In the present study we examine a revised screening criterion designed to reduce the number of false positives. The revised criterion generated fewer positive screens overall than the original and resulted in improved specificity (96% vs. 87%) and positive predictive value (77% vs. 51%), while maintaining the high sensitivity (91%) and negative predictive value (98%) of the original criterion. We also propose a screening score based on the new criterion, designed to inform the process of deciding which children to bring in for further evaluation.

Early detection of speech and language delays in the Netherlands. The case for integrating primary and secondary prevention.

The early detection of speech and language delays has been an important feature of the child health services in the Netherlands for some 15 years. During this period ideas about both the purpose of screening and the methods themselves have changed considerably. There are four key outstanding issues: What is the best age to identify children? What screening measures are available? How can we detect speech and language delays in multilingual children? Which groups are best able to detect speech and language difficulties: parents, teachers, playgroup leaders, doctors, nurses, or speech and language therapists? These questions are influenced by social, demographic developments and an increase in the understanding of language delay. This article examines the Dutch solutions to these problems. The conclusion reached is that early language screening can only be part of the answer to early detection both because the available measures are not yet sufficiently accurate and because the growing group of multilingual children (e.g. in Amsterdam more than 50% of the children under the age of 4 years are multilingual) makes the application of specific measures at a population level unworkable. An alternative method is suggested, namely primary prevention by giving information and support to parents, playgroup leaders, doctors, etc.

An investigation into aspects of the Mayo early language screening test.

The concurrent validity and inter-tester agreement on the Mayo early language screening test (MELST), and the concurrent validity of parental anxiety about speech and language development as a screening measure were investigated. A sample (aged 18 months to 5 years) comprising 120 children referred to the Mayo speech and language therapy department during 1995 and 80 controls, was assessed on the MELST by their local public health nurse. Within a calendar month each child was reassessed on the MELST by the therapist, who also administered the Reynell developmental language scales (RDLS) and the Edinburgh articulation test (EAT) as criterion measures. Overall, the MELST achieved moderately high sensitivity and specificity measures. Phonological problems were identified with more accuracy than language problems and the test was equally sensitive to impairments in comprehension and expression. The test tended to over-refer and was least accurate in screening the language skills of children at the highest age level (4-5 years). A significant association was found between parental concern and pass/failure on each of the MELST, RDLS and EAT. As a screening measure, parental anxiety achieved high sensitivity, moderate specificity and a moderate positive predictive value. However, it also tended to over-refer, and was also least accurate in identifying speech and/or language disorders at the highest age level. Moderately high inter-tester agreement measures were found, with greater agreement between scoring for controls than referrals. The phonology sections were scored significantly higher by the public health nurses than by the therapist. The results of this study imply that the MELST is sufficiently accurate and reliable to recommend its continued use in child surveillance programmes.

Can severe language disability be identified in three‐year‐olds? Evaluation of a routine screening procedure

This study evaluates the predictability of a new language screening procedure in 3‐y‐olds. It is used in several Child Health Centres (CHC) in Sweden and has the character of a field study involving more than 60 CHC nurses. The main questions concern the (i) development in 3‐y‐olds assessed as severely language delayed and (ii) whether there are any earlier unknown severely disabled children identified at 4 y of age. Ninety‐six percent of the original study population participated in the follow‐up. The calculations are based on results from 2237 children. A well‐established screening routine, which has been shown capable of predicting the risk of not being able to follow expected schooling, and case records were used as an acceptable proxy outcome measure, pending a better gold standard. In the group of severely disabled 3‐y‐olds, sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values were 86, 99 and 43%, respectively. Finally, three false‐negatives were identified. In light of the present results, continued application of the 3‐y screening is discussed.

Screening Low-Income African American Children Using the BLT-2S and the SPELT-P

Screening the language abilities of African American kindergarten children with low socioeconomic status (SES) poses a major challenge for many speech-language pathologists. This article provides data on the effectiveness of two commonly used standardized screening measures: the screening version of the Bankson Language Test-2 (BLT-2S; Bankson, 1990a) and the Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test-Preschool (SPELT-P; Werner & Kresheck, 1983a). The results of the study provide information concerning the language screening failure rates for the two formal measures, the amount of correction achieved from using an alternative dialect-sensitive scoring method, and an item analysis of the children’s performance on these two measures. The findings presented here provide support for the need identified in the literature for alternatives to available formal language screening measures for use with low SES African American kindergarten children.

Research Digest: Early Language Screening of At-Risk Children

Research Digest: Early Language Screening of At-Risk Children

Concurrent and predictive validity of an early language screening program.

The efficacy of screening 2-year-old children for language delay using a parent-report questionnaire was investigated in three studies. The Language Development Survey (Rescorla, 1989) was mailed to 650 families at the time of their child's second birthday. Fifty-three percent of the surveys received by parents were completed and returned. Screening outcomes were then compared, in double-blind fashion, with the results of comprehensive clinical evaluations at ages 2 (N = 64) and 3 (N = 36). Parents' report of the size of their children's expressive vocabularies was highly correlated with clinical language measures at age 2. Children who screened positive performed significantly poorer than children who screened negative on standardized language tests and on measures taken from spontaneous conversation. The screening program demonstrated excellent sensitivity and specificity for identifying language delay at age 2 but somewhat lower levels for predicting developmental status one year later.

Early intervention project: evaluation of WILSTAAR, Hanen and specialist playgroup.

This paper describes an early intervention project which combines a three tiered approach to speech and language provision for pre-school children. Jointly funded by I CAN, AFASIC, Dorset Healthcare NHS Trust and the Department of Health, this two and a half year project aims to reduce the numbers of children and severity of their speech and language difficulties on entering school. The project uses the following approaches--the Ward Infant Language Screening Test Assessment Acceleration Remediation (WILSTAAR), the Hanen parent programmes and a specialist speech and language playgroup. In this paper these approaches are described with an explanation of how each is being evaluated and where possible interim results have been presented.

Prevalence of specific language impairment in kindergarten children.

This epidemiologic study estimated the prevalence of specific language impairment (SLI) in monolingual English-speaking kindergarten children. From a stratified cluster sample in rural, urban, and suburban areas in the upper midwest, 7,218 children were screened. The language screening failure rate was 26.2%. Children who failed the screening and a similar number of controls were then administered a diagnostic battery (n = 2,084) that provided for a diagnosis of SLI using common diagnostic standards. Results provided an estimated overall prevalence rate of 7.4%. The prevalence estimate for boys was 8% and for girls 6%. Variation in prevalence was found among children of different racial/cultural backgrounds; however, these background variables were found to be correlated with parental education, which was also associated with SLI. The parents of 29% of the children identified as SLI reported they had previously been informed that their child had a speech or language problem. The prevalence estimates obtained fell within recent estimates for SLI, but demonstrated that this condition is more prevalent among females than has been previously reported. Also, the clinical identification of these children remains low among kindergarteners.

THE COMMUNICATION SCREENING SYSTEM: Further Validation of a potential replacement for hearing, speech, and language screening 577

THE COMMUNICATION SCREENING SYSTEM: Further Validation of a potential replacement for hearing, speech, and language screening 577

Preschool speech and language screening: further validation of the sentence repetition screening test.

A recent review indicated that only one speech and language screening test (the Sentence Repetition Screening Test; SRST) designed for preschoolers has been successfully validated in a representative population. This study sought to replicate the SRST validation study using a somewhat younger age group and to compare predictive indices to typical measures of parent concern and teacher judgment. A sample of (N = 343) prekindergarten children (ages 54 to 66 months) attending school registration in the spring before kindergarten entry was tested with the SRST. A stratified sample of 76 returned for criteria testing within 2 months. Teacher ratings were obtained 5 months later. Outcome measures were standard language (Bankson and Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities) and speech articulation (Arizona) tests. With a prevalence of 11%, SRST prediction of language outcomes resulted in the following indices: sensitivity, .62; specificity, .91; predictive validity, .44; overreferral, 8.4%; and underreferral, 4%. Prediction of the articulation outcome with a prevalence of 11% resulted in indices as follows: sensitivity, .57; specificity, .95; predictive validity, .75; overreferral, 3.7%; and underreferral, 8.3%. Teacher ratings and a parent questionnaire (Speech and Language Screening Questionnaire) approached the same rate of prediction of articulation but with a higher overreferral rate. The predictive indices from the SRST exceeded the comparison measures for language outcomes.

The Efficiency of the Revised Denver Developmental Screening Test as a Language Screening Tool

The purpose of this study was to determine the number of false positives and false negatives derived from the language domain of the Revised Denver Developmental Screening Test (RDDST) in a community preschool screening. Six months after the initial screening, 199 RDDST protocols were reviewed and the status of each child was documented. The study identified nine false positives and three false negatives, which resulted in a positive hit rate of 93.5 %. The results of the study indicate that the RDDST is an effective tool in predicting the need for formal assessment.

Screening for early language delay in the 18-36 month age-range: the predictive validity of tests of production, and implications for practice

Research evidence reveals that the processes of production and compre hension are not functionally discrete before around 28 months. The implications for the predictive validity of standardized screening tests which involve production, particularly those using 'flexible object naming', are considered. Examples of multiphasic and monophasic language screening tests suitable for use with children in the 18-36 month age range are reviewed, and theoretical and empirical issues underlying the development of the First Words and First Sentences tests are explored.

LANGUAGE PROBLEMS IN CHILDREN REFERRED FOR ATTENTION DEFICIT HYPERACTIVITY DISORDER (ADHD). † 803

ADHD is a common condition with a prevalence reported to be 3-5% of school age children. These children frequently have language problems in association with ADHD. Importantly, the frequency of language difficulties in those children who are evaluated for, but do not meet ADHD diagnostic criteria, is unknown. Accordingly, we evaluated forty-five children (37 male, 8 female) between the ages of 6 and 10 years (mean age 8±1 yrs) referred to a tertiary care center for evaluation of possible ADHD (R/O ADHD group) for the presence of language difficulties. Twenty children (12 male, 8 female; mean age 8±1) with no history of attentional problems or hyperactivity served as controls (Cntrl group). We hypothesized that there would be a higher incidence of language difficulties in the R/O ADHD group compared with controls, whether or not the children were diagnosed with ADHD. All children in the R/O ADHD group were administered the CELF-R Language Screening Test(CELF-R) and the WISC-III intelligence scale. The Connors Scales were completed by their parents and teachers. Children in the Cntrl group were administered the CELF-R and the K-BIT Intelligence Screening Test. The diagnosis of ADHD was based on the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual - IVth edition criteria. Mean IQ score in the R/O ADHD group and mean screening IQ score were within the average range. There was no difference in gender, age, or Hollingshead SES score (36±13 and 39±14) between the groups. Results of the CELF-R are shown: Table

Sensitivity in parenting interactions across the first two years: Influences on children's language and play

Language development is important for children's success in life. Therefore, language is monitored by child health care professionals and parents, but a uniform set of milestones in language development is lacking. Our aim was to identify a set of clear and distinctive milestones that empirically reflect language development in children aged 1 to 6 years of age.We obtained a community-based sample of 1381 parents reporting on milestones derived from clinical signs and currently used language screening instruments. We used nonparametric Item Response Theory analysis to identify milestones belonging to one unidimensional scale.Twenty-six milestones were excellently scalable (item H coefficients 0.62–0.90) and formed a strong scale (total H coefficient 0.83). The final set of identified milestones covered vocabulary, grammar, and communication, with an item ordering that holds for all children.This unidimensional set of 26 clear and distinctive milestones reflects language development in young children and can be used as an instrument to monitor language development.