The aim of this study was to assess the criterion validity of a new screening instrument, the Early Language Scale (ELS), for the identification of young children at risk for developmental language disorder (DLD), and to determine optimal age-adjusted cut-off scores. We recruited a community-based sample of 265 children aged 1 to 6 years of age. Parents of these children responded on the ELS, a 26-item "yes-no" questionnaire. The children were assessed with extended language tests (language comprehension, word production, sentence production, communication). A composite score out of these tests (two tests below - 1 SD or one below - 1.5 SD) was used as reference standard. We assessed the validity of the ELS, measured by sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and AUC. The optimal sensitivity/specificity age-dependent cut-off ELS score was at 15th percentile. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.62 and 0.93, respectively. Positive predictive value was moderate (0.53), negative predictive value was high (0.95), the positive likelihood ratio was 9.16, and negative likelihood ratio was 0.41. The area under the ROC curve was 0.88. The items covered the increasing language development for the ages from 1 to 6.Conclusion: The ELS is a valid instrument to identify children with DLD covering an age range of 1 to 6 years in community-based settings.What is Known:• Early identification and treatment of developmental language disorders can reduce negative effects on children's emotional functioning, academic success, and social relationships.• Short, validated language screening instruments that cover the full age range of early childhood language development lack.What is New:• The 26-item Early Language Scale (ELS) is a valid instrument to identify children at risk for developmental language disorder in well-child care and early educational settings among Dutch children aged 1-6 years.
Purpose: Most speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working with children with developmental language disorder (DLD) do not perform language sample analysis (LSA) on a regular basis, although they do regard LSA as highly informative for goal setting and evaluating grammatical therapy. The primary aim of this study was to identify facilitators, barriers, and needs related to performing LSA by Dutch SLPs working with children with DLD. The secondary aim was to investigate whether a training would change the actual performance of LSA. Method: A focus group with 11 SLPs working in Dutch speech-language pathology practices was conducted. Barriers, facilitators, and needs were identified using thematic analysis and categorized using the theoretical domain framework. To address the barriers, a training was developed using software program CLAN. Changes in barriers and use of LSA were evaluated with a survey sent to participants before, directly after, and 3 months posttraining. Results: The barriers reported in the focus group were SLPs’ lack of knowledge and skills, time investment, negative beliefs about their capabilities, differences in beliefs about their professional role, and no reimbursement from health insurance companies. Posttraining survey results revealed that LSA was not performed more often in daily practice. Using CLAN was not the solution according to participating SLPs. Time investment remained a huge barrier. Conclusions: A training in performing LSA did not resolve the time investment barrier experienced by SLPs. User-friendly software, developed in codesign with SLPs might provide a solution. For the short-term, shorter samples, preferably from narrative tasks, should be considered.
Background Children with speech sound disorders (SSD) are at higher risk of communication breakdown, but the impact of having an SSD may vary from child to child. Determining the severity of SSD helps speech-language therapists (SLTs) to recognise the extent of the problem and to identify and prioritise children who require intervention. Aims This study aimed to identify severity factors for SSD in order to develop a multifactorial Speech Sound Disorder Severity Construct (SSDSC) using SLTs’ views and the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF). Method In an explorative five-staged qualitative study, the research question was answered: ‘How do SLTs determine the severity of SSD in children?’. A total of 91 SLTs from The Netherlands participated in data collection and analysis. The iterative process included three different qualitative research methodologies (thematic analysis [TA], constructivist grounded theory [CGT] and content analysis [CA]) to ensure validation of the results by means of method triangulation. Results SLTs considered nine themes: intelligibility, speech accuracy, persistence, the child's perception, impact, communicative participation, concomitant factors, professional point of view, and environmental factors. The themes were summarised in three main severity factors: (I) Speech accuracy, (II) The child's perception of the impact of their speech, and (III) Intelligibility in communication. Other severity factors were concomitant factors and impact. Expertise and support were identified as facilitators or barriers that may worsen or relieve the severity of SSD. Conclusions This study highlights the need for SLTs to rethink how they think about severity as a simplistic construct reflecting only speech accuracy. It is recommended that a broader holistic approach to measuring severity is adopted.
LINK
