Who Receives Speech/language Services By 5 Years Of Age In The United States?

Evidence Summary

Speech and Language Filibuster and Disorders in Children Age 5 and Younger: Screening

July 07, 2015

Recommendations made by the USPSTF are independent of the U.Southward. government. They should not be construed every bit an official position of the Bureau for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

By Ina F. Wallace, PhD, Nancy D. Berkman, PhD, Linda R. Watson, EdD, Tamera Coyne-Beasley, MD, MPH, Charles T. Wood, MD, Katherine Cullen, BA, and Kathleen Due north. Lohr, PhD

The data in this article is intended to help clinicians, employers, policymakers, and others brand informed decisions about the provision of health care services. This article is intended equally a reference and not as a substitute for clinical judgment.

This article may be used, in whole or in office, as the footing for the development of clinical exercise guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or as a footing for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.Southward. Department of Health and Human being Services endorsement of such derivative products may not exist stated or implied.

This commodity was kickoff published in Pediatrics (Pediatrics 2015:135[v]) on July 7, 2015.

Return to Tabular array of Contents

Background and Objectives: No recommendation exists for or against routine apply of cursory, formal abstruse screening instruments in principal intendance to detect spoken language and language delay in children through five years of age. This review aimed to update the bear witness on screening and treating children for spoken language and language since the 2006 US Preventive Services Chore Forcefulness systematic review.

Methods: Medline, the Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Centrolineal Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists. We included studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of screening tools and randomized controlled trials reporting benefits and harms of treatment of speech and language. Two independent reviewers extracted data, checked accuracy, and assigned quality ratings using predefined criteria.

Results: We found no evidence for the impact of screening on speech and language outcomes. In 23 studies evaluating the accuracy of screening tools, sensitivity ranged betwixt 50% and 94%, and specificity ranged between 45% and 96%. Twelve treatment studies improved diverse outcomes in language, articulation, and stuttering; little testify emerged for interventions improving other outcomes or for adverse effects of treatment. Take a chance factors associated with oral communication and language delay were male person gender, family history, and low parental education. A limitation of this review is the lack of well-designed, well-conducted studies addressing whether screening for oral communication and language delay or disorders improves outcomes.

Conclusions: Several screening tools tin accurately identify children for diagnostic evaluations and interventions, but evidence is inadequate regarding applicability in principal intendance settings. Some treatments for young children identified with speech and language delays and disorders may exist effective.

Render to Table of Contents

Spoken language and language delays and disorders are common, with an estimated prevalence betwixt 5% and 12% (median, six%) in children 2 to 5 years of age.ⁱ A speech or language delay implies that the child is developing speech or linguistic communication in the right sequence but at a slower rate than expected, whereas a spoken communication or language disorder suggests that the kid's speech or linguistic communication ability is qualitatively different from what is typical. In this review, we employ speech and linguistic communication "delay," "disorder," "harm," and "inability" interchangeably.

The American Spoken language-Linguistic communication-Hearing Association guidelines describe a speech disorder as an impairment of the articulation of speech sounds, fluency, or voice and a linguistic communication disorder equally impaired comprehension or use of spoken, written, or other symbol systems. A disorder may involve the form of language (phonology, morphology, syntax), the content of language (semantics), and the function of language in communication (pragmatics) in any combination.² Because prelinguistic communication behaviors (eg, gestures, babbling, articulation attending) are associated with language delays,^3–v this review considers screening of both exact and preverbal advice skills.

Young children with spoken language and language delay in the preschool years may be at increased take chances for learning disabilities in one case they reach schoolhouse historic period.⁶ Children with both voice communication sound disorders and linguistic communication damage are at greatest chance for language-based learning disabilities (eg, difficulties in reading and written language).^{7, eight} Estimates of the increased chance for poor reading outcomes in grade school are iv to 5 times greater for children with oral communication and linguistic communication impairment than for children with advisable development;^9–12 risk persists into adulthood.¹³ Adults who had speech and language disorders as children may hold lower-skilled jobs and are more probable to experience unemployment than other adults.^xiv Behavior problems and impaired psychosocial adjustment associated with speech communication and language may likewise persist into adulthood.^xv–17

Identifying speech and linguistic communication problems before children enter schoolhouse can foster initiation of early interventions before these problems interfere with formal teaching and behavioral aligning. AAP clinical guidelines recommend that pediatric health intendance providers perform surveillance at every well-child visit for children <36 months of historic period; should concerns ascend, screening should exist administered using standardized developmental tools.¹⁸ Irrespective of concerns, the guidelines identify 9, 18, and 24 or thirty months as appropriate ages for developmental screening.

In 2006, the United states of america Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) ended that show was insufficient to recommend for or against ("I statement") routine utilise of cursory, formal screening instruments in primary care to observe oral communication and language delay in children up to 5 years of age. In 2013, the USPSTF deputed a new systematic review of the current testify on cursory, formal screening for oral communication and linguistic communication delays and disorders in children five years former and younger.¹⁹ The USPSTF used information technology to update its 2006 recommendations well-nigh screening in primary care settings.

Render to Table of Contents

Following the USPSTF Procedure Manual,²⁰ we developed an analytic framework (Supplemental Fig 2), list of cardinal questions (KQs), and supporting contextual questions. We searched Medline (via PubMed), the Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature for English language-language articles published from January i, 2004, through July twenty, 2014. We conducted targeted searches for unpublished literature in ClinicalTrials.gov. Appendix A of the total report¹⁹ documents the search strategy. To supplement electronic searches, we reviewed reference lists of pertinent review articles and included studies

We used a PICOTS (populations, interventions, comparators, outcomes, timing, settings, and study designs) approach to identify studies that met inclusion and exclusion criteria that we adult for each cardinal question (run across Appendices B and C of the full report).¹⁹ Two reviewers independently applied inclusion and exclusion criteria to all studies in the 2006 review and to all new studies from our update searches.

An investigator bathetic evidence from included full-text articles for each cardinal question; a second investigator checked and confirmed each abstraction. We also checked for errors in the abstractions of studies in the 2006 review. Two reviewers independently rated the quality of each report based on USPSTF guidelines as skillful, off-white, or poor (meet Appendix D of the full report);¹⁹ they resolved discrepancies past word. We reassessed the quality rating of studies in the 2006 review to ensure that they met current criteria. If i reviewer disagreed with this before assessment, nosotros rerated the quality of that report through dual review.

Nosotros abstracted accurateness statistics when bachelor from screening studies. When investigators did not provide accuracy statistics, we calculated sensitivity, specificity, prevalence, positive and negative predictive values, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LRs), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for sensitivity and specificity (see Appendix E of the full written report).^{19, 21}

We evaluated applicability to U.s.a. main intendance populations based on demographics, coexisting weather, representativeness of the population, study refusal rate, severity of the delay, and recruitment source and applicability of the intervention/screening (i.eastward., how well the clinical experience is liable to be reproduced in other settings).

This review was funded by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ). The USPSTF members and AHRQ Medical Officers helped develop the telescopic, KQs, and analytic framework that guided our literature search and review.

Return to Table of Contents

We certificate the impact of screening using show derived from included studies identified through the 2006 report,^{22, 23} our database and manual searches,^{19, 24} and recommendations from peer reviewers. We had evidence for 5 of vii KQs (Supplemental Fig 2); nosotros had no show for KQ3 (adverse effects of screening) or KQ4 (surveillance by master care clinicians). Effigy 1 shows the period of studies from initial identification of titles and abstracts to concluding inclusion or exclusion.

KQ1: Improvements in Outcomes

No written report met the 2006 inclusion criteria to determine whether screening improved either speech and linguistic communication or other outcomes. One randomized controlled trial (RCT) met our inclusion criteria past randomizing a large national sample of children who received regularly scheduled care at child health centers to early screening and measuring outcomes at 8 years of age.^{25, 26} We did not include evidence from this trial owing to a rating of poor quality caused past very high compunction.

KQ2: Accurate Identification of Children for Diagnostic Evaluations and Interventions: Screening Accuracy

We examined the accuracy of screening techniques and whether accuracy varies past demographic and screening source. Nosotros included 24 practiced and off-white studies (26 articles): 8 newly identified studies (9 articles^27–35) and 16 studies (17 articles) from the 2006 review^36–52 (Supplemental Table 3). Supplemental Tabular array 4 describes relevant screening instruments.

Detailed Synthesis of Show on Screening Accuracy

Tables 1 and ii present accuracy statistics separately for parent and trained-examiner instruments, respectively. We report sensitivity and specificity (and 95% CIs), prevalence, positive and negative predictive values, and positive and negative LRs. We present median (non mean) values because accurateness statistics were skewed. We written report the accurateness statistics by age grouping when possible.

Accuracy of Screening Instruments Used by Parents

Altogether, xiv studies (xvi articles^{27–xxx, 32–35, 40, 42, 43, 46–49, 52}) examined the accuracy of screeners in which parents rated the speech communication and language skills of their young children (generally 2 or iii years of age) (Table 1). Cutoff scores for positive screening (i.e., a speech or language problem), when provided, varied by instrument.

Sensitivity for detecting a true speech and language delay or disorder using parent-report screeners ranged between l% and 94% (median, 81%); specificity for detecting a child without speech and language delays ranged betwixt 45% and 96% (median, 87%). Children with positive screening results (i.e., those who failed the screening examination) had a moderately⁵³ higher likelihood of linguistic communication delay than children with negative screening results (i.e., those who passed) in at least 1 study investigating the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ), the Communicative Development Inventory (CDI), the Language Development Survey (LDS), the Parent Questionnaire, and Ward'south screening tool. With respect to negative LRs, results from ≥i studies using the CDI, the Infant-Toddler Checklist (ITC), and LDS suggested a moderately lower likelihood of language filibuster for those children who passed the screening exam relative to those who did non.

Accuracy by Age of Child

ASQ sensitivity was marginally college for older children (four.5 years) in 1 study²⁷ than for younger children (two to 3 years) in two other studies.^{28, 29} Yet, in the latter 2 studies, the positive LRs indicated at to the lowest degree a moderately higher likelihood of a language delay in children who screened positive relative to children who screened negative; we saw no such increase in the likelihood of filibuster in the study of older children. The negative LRs were small and equivalent for both younger and older samples.

Four of the 5 CDI studies examined the accuracy of the toddler version (xviii to 36 months).^{29, 30, 32–34} The fifth study used the preschool version with children 36 to 62 months of historic period.²⁸ Accuracy of the 2 versions was like. The 1 ITC report separately considered 2 age groups of toddlers (12 to 17 months; 18 to 24 months); accurateness was similar for younger and older toddlers.³⁵

Accuracy of Longer-Term Prediction

Two studies examined the accuracy of parent-reported screeners for predicting long-term language delay.^{32, 33, 42, 43} Both studies examined the accurateness of the screener at 2 years in relation to the reference standard (a diagnostic tool) at both two years and 3 years. In the LDS study,⁴³ sensitivity for detecting a language delay at 3 years was 67% (91% at ii years). Specificity for detecting typical linguistic communication development at 3 years was 93% (96% at 2 years). In the ELFRA-2 (i.e., German CDI) study,^{32, 33} sensitivity and specificity at three years were 94% (93% at 2 years) and 61% (88% at 2 years), respectively.

Accuracy of Screening Instruments Used past Trained Examiners

Twelve studies examined the accuracy of instruments administered by trained examiners, including nurses, primary intendance providers, teachers, and paraprofessionals (Table 2).^{27, 31, 36–39, 41, 44, 45, 48, 50, 51} These studies tended to focus on older preschool-age children: 3 studies included children two to 3 years of age;^{44, 45, 48} 1 of children three to 4 years of age;³⁷ v of children 4 to five years of age;^{27, 31, 36, 50, 51} and 3 of children across different ages (eighteen to 72 months).^{38, 39, 41} Several studies included >ane screening instrument. All simply 2 instruments require some direct testing of the child; the Developmental Nurse Screen48 and the Davis Ascertainment Checklist for Texas (DOCT)³⁶ involve ratings made after observing the child.

Sensitivity for detecting a truthful filibuster or disorder ranged betwixt 17% and 100% (median, 74%); specificity for detecting typical voice communication and language ranged betwixt 46% and 100% (median, 91%). In studies of the Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test,²⁷ DOCT,³⁶ Screening Kit of Language Evolution (SKOLD),³⁸ Judgement Repetition Screening Test,⁵¹ Structured Screening Exam,⁴⁴ and the Trial Speech communication Screening Exam,³¹ positive LRs indicated at to the lowest degree a moderately college likelihood of linguistic communication filibuster for those who screened positive; the studies of the Brigance Preschool Screening Exam,²⁷ DOCT,³⁶ Early on Screening Test,²⁷ Hackney Early Language Screening Test,⁴⁵ Northwestern Syntax Screening Test,³⁷ and SKOLD,³⁸ indicated at least a moderately lower likelihood of language filibuster for those who screened negative.

Accurateness by Age of Children and Language Dialect

One written report used the SKOLD to screen children ages xxx to 48 months.³⁸ For versions advisable for children thirty to 36 months, 37 to 42 months, and 43 to 48 months, median sensitivity rates were 94%, 94%, and 97%, respectively; median specificity rates were 92%, 88%, and 85%. Beyond the iii age levels, median sensitivity and specificity were 88% and 86% for the African American dialect versions and 100% and 93% for the Standard English versions.

KQ5: Treatment: Speech and Language Outcomes

13 RCTs (6 newly identified)^54–59 in 14 articles evaluating speech and language interventions and i systematic review met criteria for inclusion (Supplemental Table v). Of these, 11 examined language outcomes and 8 measured speech outcomes. The systematic review of handling of babyhood apraxia of spoken language failed to find whatever studies that met our inclusion criteria, and so nosotros did not consider information technology farther.^lx

Language

Of 11 studies measuring language outcomes (Supplemental Tabular array half-dozen), 4 used parents as the primary intervention agent.^{57, 61–63} In 2 trials testing variations of the Hanen Parent Plan^{57, 62} for toddlers with language delays, i found significant furnishings on expressive language measures favoring the treatment grouping;⁶² in dissimilarity, another trial constitute no meaning differences in receptive or expressive language.⁵⁷ Group training on linguistic communication activities for parents of toddlers with limited expressive language constitute significant furnishings on expressive and receptive language.⁶¹ Finally, i group of parents learned activities to target speech sounds and a second group of parent shared storybooks with their children;⁶³ neither handling was associated with gains in child expressive syntax or semantic knowledge compared with the command group.

Two trials tested treatments primarily or exclusively delivered in a small group format by researcher-trained staff to toddlers⁶⁴ or preschoolers;⁵⁴ the latter also included private treatment sessions after the first 10 weeks of the program.⁵⁴ Both trials reported significant improvement on measures of linguistic communication skills.

Iv trials tested individual handling to children by inquiry staff or oral communication-language pathologists.^{58, 59, 65, 66} Ane examined the effects of providing young children (xviii to 42 months) with language or phonological delays with access to usual speech-language therapy services in the community.⁶⁵ With an boilerplate of simply six.ii hours of therapy over 12 months, children showed small merely meaning gains in receptive, but not expressive, language relative to controls. Another trial involving 4-twelvemonth-olds with specific language impairments tested a manualized intervention that addressed individualized language goals, phonological and print awareness, and letter noesis.⁵⁹ The intervention had no significant effect on expressive, receptive, or pragmatic language. A tertiary trial tested the effects of a strategy chosen recasting (repeating what is said by a kid, with correct articulation or with a grammatical expansion of the child's utterance).⁵⁸ The intervention had no overall effect on children's hateful length of utterances only did produce improvements among children with the lowest baseline articulation skills. The fourth trial tested whether an individualized treatment of children with speech sound disorders afflicted mean length of utterance only found no significant language effect.⁶⁶

Finally, preschoolers with language impairments who played with peers with age-advisable linguistic communication skills in the house play expanse of their classroom over a 3-week period improved significantly on activity-specific expressive language.⁶⁴

Speech communication Sounds

Viii trials reported on diverse speech sounds^{54, 58, 59, 63, 65–68} (Supplemental Table half-dozen). Of 2 trials of parent-mediated interventions, 1 found that a modified Hanen Parent Program had significant effects on consonant inventory and syllable structure.⁶⁷ In the other trial, parents engaged the child in activities directed at discrimination of sounds.⁶³ Children in the command condition improved more in auditory discrimination in the presence of background noise than experimental subjects.

A small grouping intervention for toddlers significantly improved the per centum of intelligible utterances for treated children.⁶⁸

Ii studies examined individual handling by speech-language pathologists. One examined the effects of the "cycles" approach to phonological therapy (wherein dominion-based errors in the kid's voice communication sound production are treated through recursive cycles of therapy) for preschoolers with severe phonological disorders; the intervention produced meaning furnishings on standardized tests and per centum of correct consonants from a speech communication sample.⁶⁶ The other report found no improvement in phonology mistake charge per unit for children randomized to usual customs speech-language pathology services for a year; however, treated children were 2.vii times less likely to exhibit the severity of speech sound issues used as a criterion for initial study eligibility.⁶⁵

The recasting trial found no main effects on children's intelligibility, but did notice improvements amidst children with the lowest baseline joint skills.⁵⁸

Two studies reported that their interventions significantly improved phonological awareness skills in preschoolers. In one, teaching assistants delivered small grouping and individual lessons;⁵⁴ in the other, language assistants provided private home-based interventions.⁵⁹

Fluency

2 trials examined the Lidcombe Program of Early Stuttering intervention.⁶⁹ Both significantly reduced stuttering in preschoolers, when delivered in a clinic setting⁵⁵ and when using a telephone-based wellness delivery model.⁵⁶

KQ6: Handling: Outcomes Other Than Speech and Language

2 trials examined effects on socialization. I, among children receiving community-based spoken communication-language services, produced no significant effect.⁶⁵ The other, among language-delayed toddlers receiving small-group therapy, produced large and significant differences favoring the treated children.⁶⁸

For reducing behavior problems, one trial tested the effectiveness of a low-intensity parent group program⁵⁷ and some other an in-home individualized program provided by a linguistic communication assistant;⁵⁹ neither found significant effects. Similarly, measures of well-being of toddlers⁶⁵ and wellness-related quality of life of preschoolers⁵⁹ yielded nonsignificant effects of treatment.

In two trials, toddlers randomized to speech-linguistic communication services were no different from controls on attention level or play.^{65, 68} Parents of linguistic communication-delayed toddlers participating in modest-grouping linguistic communication therapy reported significantly greater improvements in parental stress.⁶⁸

Two trials measuring emergent literacy skills among preschoolers^{54, 59} plant that letter cognition improved significantly, but one failed to find a pregnant issue for a broader construct of literacy.⁵⁴ Yet, treatment did significantly improve a measure of reading comprehension administered at half dozen-months of follow-up.

KQ7. Adverse Effects of Treatments

Three studies examined potential agin effects of interventions but reported no negative impacts on children or parents.^{59, 65, 68}

Return to Table of Contents

Screening Accuracy

Some screening instruments accurately identify children for language delays or disorders. Every bit in the 2006 review, yet, we observed wide ranges of reported sensitivity and specificity; no i instrument clearly demonstrated the best characteristics or 1 age as optimal for screening. We compared findings from the aforementioned instrument in dissimilar populations; specifically, accuracy of 3 parent-rated screeners (ASQ, CDI, and ITC) and 2 trained examiner screeners (Fluharty Preschool Speech communication and Language Screening Test and SKOLD) across ages. CDI, ITC, and SKOLD displayed consistency and adequate levels of sensitivity and specificity (≥70%)^lxx at each age level; this suggests that they are more than robust across different ages than ASQ and Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Examination, which had generally low sensitivity across age levels.

Accuracy apparently drops over time. In the two studies^{32, 33, 42, 43} that examined whether a parent-report screener administered at 2 years would be every bit accurate at 3 years, sensitivity was lower in 1 study and specificity was lower in the other. Decreasing specificity with time may mean some that some children with language delays will "catch upwardly" and display more than typical language skills as they historic period.⁷¹

The comparison betwixt parent-rated and trained-examiner screeners indicated many similarities in operation characteristics. Aside from the Denver Developmental Screening Examination (now known as the Denver II), virtually trained-examiner tools are non used in primary care offices and would require a dedicated, trained examiner to test the child directly. Iii parent-rated screeners (CDI, ITC, and LDS) display adequate sensitivity and specificity. Moreover, because parents complete these screeners, adopting them in a screening plan would not burden a main intendance do with training someone in exam administration. The more all-encompassing data that parents provide related specifically to their children's language skills may help explain their greater accurateness in identifying children with speech communication and language delays than broad-based screeners that include other domains simply fewer speech and language items. Moreover, staff in primary care settings could likely interpret results from parent screeners with little difficulty.

Handling Outcomes

The majority of the 13 trials support the effectiveness of treating young children with language delays and disorders (6 of eleven trials reporting meaning positive results) and those with issues with speech sounds (6 of viii trials reporting significant positive results), and toddlers and preschoolers for fluency bug (2 of two trials reporting significant positive results). Private and small-group service delivery models and various intervention agents, including parents supported or trained by professionals, speech-language pathologists, and trained teaching or therapy assistants, more often than not favored intervention groups.

Multiple factors limit the confident interpretation of this body of prove on spoken communication and language handling. These factors involve (one) the small-scale size of many trials, which constrains investigating moderators and mediators of treatment effectiveness; (2) the lack of replicated positive findings for whatsoever treatment approach except the Lidcombe program for stuttering; (3) the broad variability across trials in the age of children treated, intervention agents (eg, speech-language pathologists, educational activity assistants, parents, enquiry staff), intensity, content, and strategies; (4) the relatively small number of trials using manualized treatments or providing enough details of the treatment to let replication; (5) a corresponding lack of data detailing handling fidelity in many trials; (6) a lack of mutual issue measures; and (seven) inconsistency in how results are reported. Because of this degree of heterogeneity, we could not do any meta-analysis. Overall, the evidence offers picayune guidance virtually specific factors associated with constructive treatments for young children with speech and language delays.

Contextual Issues: Risk Factors

One contextual issue involved whether consistent, reliable, and valid chance factors exist that clinicians could use to place children at highest risk for speech and language delay and disorders.^xix Nosotros examined 31 cohort studies, 24 with multivariate analysis to command for other factors, and i review of studies on characteristics of late-talking toddlers; twenty cohort studies involved English-speaking children (Supplemental Tables 7 and 8). Potential risk factors for voice communication and language problems include male gender, family unit history of spoken communication or language impairment, lower levels of parental didactics, and various perinatal risk factors (eg, prematurity, birth difficulties, and low nascency weight).

Studies nearly take chances factors varied in the type of delay or disorder existence considered, used inconsistent measurement of hazard factors, included heterogeneous patient populations, and inconsistently adapted for confounders in multivariate models. Future research should account for the heterogeneity across populations of children, consider a multifactorial perspective of kid development, examine social determinants of health as possible risk factors, and adopt more than standardized event measures over a longer-term menstruum of follow-up than has been customary to date.

Limitations of the Review

Numerous limitations of the literature base continue to plague the field. Some date to the 2006 review, but additional limitations nosotros encountered farther reduce the applicability of the findings.

Near serious is the lack of well-designed, well-conducted studies addressing the overarching question: does screening for spoken communication and linguistic communication delay or disorders improve outcomes? Moreover, neither the 2006 review nor our update found any studies that addressed the questions of adverse effects of screening or the role of enhanced surveillance by main care clinicians in accurately identifying children for diagnostic evaluations and interventions, 2 of import issues in screening.

We identified some instruments that tin can accurately screen children with speech and linguistic communication delays. Even so, many studies included potentially inappropriate populations, such equally "samples" of children identified (randomly or otherwise) on the basis of their linguistic communication status. Using such "predetermined" samples hampers investigators from determining certain accuracy statistics (other than sensitivity and specificity) and may bias conclusions well-nigh screening accurateness and, thus, tin can limit applicability to pediatric populations in general. Moreover, few studies examined how well screeners detected speech and language disorders over the long term. Such studies are critical in calculating the real do good of early detection. In addition, few of the screening accuracy studies occurred in primary care settings, and none in the Usa. The extent to which conclusions reached from screening in primary care settings in Sweden, Australia, and the Britain are generalizable to the The states is not known.

Nigh treatment studies were besides conducted outside the United States. Whether conclusions reached from trials in countries with different medical, health insurance, and educational systems employ in this country remains an open question. Additional limitations chronicle to interpreting treatment outcomes and replicating interventions. Much of the literature lacks information about of import features of the intervention, such as whether children received community services for speech and language outside the report, and does non adequately certificate intervention models. Finally, control groups in numerous trials were children offered intervention on a delayed schedule. This condition probable would make parents more willing to consent to enrolling their children in a RCT, but it constrains our ability to look at long-range outcomes for treated versus untreated children.

Future Enquiry Needs

To make up one's mind whether screening for voice communication and language delay or disorders improves speech, language, or other outcomes, studies need to exist specifically designed and executed to examine these issues. Furthermore, they need to be implemented with little chance of bias. This inquiry gap presents an opportunity for a big written report in primary intendance settings to exam the efficacy of systematic routine screening for speech and language delays and disorders in comparison with not implementing routine screening. In tandem with this, the field would benefit from a study to examine the feasibility of speech and language-specific screening as office of the more general developmental screening that is already recommended.^xviii

Given federal mandates under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Human action that all children with a documented spoken communication or linguistic communication delay receive early on intervention, conducting RCTs to examine the efficacy of interventions may be difficult in future. Protocols may adopt rigorous quasi-experimental designs, such as regression discontinuity designs, to answer intervention questions. Well-designed and implemented regression discontinuity designs see standards for rigor for evaluations of evidence sponsored by the Institute of Pedagogy Sciences.

We recommend that stakeholders with an interest in screening develop research agendas and funding targeted to answer the important questions that we could not accost. Future systematic reviews will benefit from an enhanced literature base.

Return to Tabular array of Contents

We found no evidence to respond the overarching question of whether screening for speech and linguistic communication delay or disorders improves speech communication and language outcomes. Studies from the 2006 review and our newly identified studies suggest that some screening instruments can accurately pinpoint these disorders. Although the parent-rated instruments require only that the master intendance provider interpret the findings, studies take non examined this in practice. As in the 2006 review, we found no studies that addressed the harms of screening for spoken communication and language delays. Neither did nosotros detect whatsoever evidence about the function of enhanced surveillance by a primary intendance clinician once a child elicits clinical concern for speech and language delay. Building on the 2006 review, we plant evidence supporting the effectiveness of treating spoken language and language delays and disorders in children. Nevertheless, the whole body of bear witness does not provide guidance regarding specific factors associated with effective treatments for young children with speech communication and linguistic communication delays or disorders. Finally, we institute no evidence relating to the harms of treating spoken language and language delays or disorders.

Return to Tabular array of Contents

Source: This commodity was published online first in Pediatrics on July 7, 2015.

Disclaimer: The authors of this article are responsible for its content. Statements in the commodity should not be construed equally endorsement past the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human being Services.

Acknowledgment: The authors acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions: AHRQ Medical Officeholder, Karen C. Lee, MD, MPH; the USPSTF leads; Evidence-based Practice Middle (EPC) Project Manager, Ballad Woodell, BSPH; RTI-UNC EPC Managing director, Meera Viswanathan, PhD; EPC Librarian, B Lynn Whitener, MSLS; and EPC publications specialist, Loraine Monroe.

Funding: This work was supported past the Agency for Healthcare Inquiry and Quality, U.Southward. Department of Health and Human Services Contract No. HHSA-290-2012-0001-5I-TO2.

Financial Disclosure: The authors have indicated they accept no financial relationships relevant to this article to disclose.

Requests for Single Reprints: Ina F. Wallace, Partitioning for Health Services and Social Policy Enquiry, RTI International, P.O. Box 12194, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194. E-mail service: wallace@rti.org.

Return to Table of Contents

References

i. Police force J, Boyle J, Harris F, Harkness A, Nye C. Prevalence and natural history of main speech communication and language delay: findings from a systematic review of the literature. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2000;35(2):165–188
2. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Definitions of Communication Disorders and Variations. Available at: http://www.asha.org/policy/RP1993-00208/. Accessed February 23, 2015
3. Whitehurst GJ, Smith Thousand, Fischel JE, Arnold DS, Lonigan CJ. The continuity of babble and speech in children with specific expressive language delay. J Oral communication Hear Res. 1991;34(v):1121–1129
4. Thal DJ, Tobias South. Chatty gestures in children with delayed onset of oral expressive vocabulary. J Oral communication Hear Res. 1992;35(6):1281–1289
five. Crais ER, Watson LR, Baranek GT. Utilise of gesture development in profiling children'due south prelinguistic communication skills. Am J Spoken language Lang Pathol. 2009; 18(1):95–108
6. Bashir Equally, Scavuzzo A. Children with language disorders: natural history and bookish success. J Learn Disabil. 1992;25(i):53–65, word 66–lxx
7. Raitano NA, Pennington BF, Tunick RA, Boada R, Shriberg LD. Pre-literacy skills of subgroups of children with spoken communication sound disorders. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2004;45(4):821–835
eight. Peterson RL, Pennington BF, Shriberg LD, Boada R. What influences literacy outcome in children with speech sound disorder? J Oral communication Lang Hear Res. 2009;52(5):1175–1188
9. Catts HW, Fey ME, Tomblin JB, Zhang Ten. A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments. J Spoken language Lang Hear Res. 2002;45(half dozen):1142–1157
10. Catts H, Fey M, Zhang Ten, et al. Estimating the risk of futurity reading difficulties in kindergarten children: a research-based model and its clinical implementation. Lang Spoken language Hear Serv Sch. 2001;32(one):38–50
11. Tomblin JB, Zhang Ten, Buckwalter P, Catts H. The association of reading disability, behavioral disorders, and language impairment among 2d-class children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2000;41(four):473–482
12. Glogowska Chiliad, Roulstone Southward, Peters TJ, Enderby P. Early spoken language- and language-dumb children: linguistic, literacy, and social outcomes. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2006;48(vi):489–494
thirteen. Young AR, Beitchman JH, Johnson C, et al. Young adult academic outcomes in a longitudinal sample of early identified language impaired and control children. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2002;43(5):635–645
14. Felsenfeld S, Broen PA, McGue Yard. A 28-year follow-up of adults with a history of moderate phonological disorder: educational and occupational results. J Oral communication Hear Res. 1994;37(half dozen):1341–1353
15. Law J, Rush R, Schoon I, Parsons S. Modeling developmental language difficulties from school entry into machismo: literacy, mental health, and employment outcomes. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2009;52(6):1401–1416
16. Cohen NJ, Barwick MA, Horodezky NB, Vallance DD, Im N. Language, achievement, and cerebral processing in psychiatrically disturbed children with previously identified and unsuspected linguistic communication impairments. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1998;39(6):865–877
17. Cohen NJ, Menna R, Vallance DD, Barwick MA, Im Northward, Horodezky NB. Linguistic communication, social cognitive processing, and behavioral characteristics of psychiatrically disturbed children with previously identified and unsuspected language impairments. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1998;39(6):853–864
18. Quango on Children With Disabilities; Department on Developmental Behavioral Pediatrics; Brilliant Futures Steering Committee; Medical Home Initiatives for Children With Special Needs Project Advisory Committee. Identifying infants and young children with developmental disorders in the medical habitation: an algorithm for developmental surveillance and screening. Pediatrics. 2006;118(1):405–420. Available at: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/118/1/405. Accessed May 2019.
19. Berkman ND, Wallace IF, Watson L, et al. Screening for Speech and Language Delay and Disorders in Children Age 5 Years or Younger: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.South. Preventive Services Task Force. Prove Synthesis No. 120. AHRQ Publication No. xiii-05197- EF-1. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Inquiry and Quality; 2015.
20. U.S. Preventive Services Task Forcefulness. Procedure Manual. Rockville, MD: USPSTF Plan Part; 2011 August. world wide web.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Folio/Proper name/procedure-manual. Accessed October 2014
21. Hamm RM. Clinical Decision Making Calculators. Oklahoma City: Section of Family and Preventive Medicine, The University of Oklahoma Wellness Sciences Eye; 2004.
22. Nelson Hd, Nygren P, Walker M, Panoscha R. Screening for speech and linguistic communication delay in preschool children: systematic show review for the United states of america Preventive Services Task Force. Pediatrics. 2006;117(two):e298–e319. Available at: world wide web.pediatrics.org/cgi/content/total/117/2/e298
23. Nelson Hard disk drive, Nygren P, Walker M, Penoscha R. Screening for speech and language delay in preschool children. Rockville, Doc: Agency for Healthcare Enquiry and Quality; February 2006
24. Police force J, Boyle J, Harris F, Harkness A, Nye C. Screening for speech and linguistic communication delay: a systematic review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 1998; 2(9):i–184
25. de Koning HJ, de Ridder-Sluiter JG, van Agt HME, et al. A cluster-randomised trial of screening for linguistic communication disorders in toddlers. J Med Screen. 2004;11(3):109–116
26. van Agt HM, van der Stege HA, de Ridder-Sluiter H, Verhoeven LT, de Koning HJ. A cluster-randomized trial of screening for linguistic communication filibuster in toddlers: effects on school performance and language development at age 8. Pediatrics. 2007;120(6):1317–1325. Available at: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/120/vi/1317. Accessed May 2019.
27. Frisk V, Montgomery L, Boychyn E, et al. Why screening Canadian preschoolers for linguistic communication delays is more than hard than it should be. Infants Young Child. 2009;22(iv):290–308
28. Guiberson Grand, Rodríguez BL. Measurement properties and classification accuracy of two Spanish parent surveys of linguistic communication development for preschool-age children. Am J Oral communication Lang Pathol. 2010;nineteen(3):225–237
29. Guiberson G, Rodríguez BL, Dale PS. Classification accuracy of cursory parent written report measures of language development in Spanish-speaking toddlers. Lang Spoken communication Hear Serv Sch. 2011;42(4):536–549
30. Heilmann J, Ellis Weismer Due south, Evans J, Hollar C. Utility of the MacArthur-Bates chatty development inventory in identifying language abilities of late-talking and typically developing toddlers. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2005;14(1):twoscore–51
31. Rigby MJ, Chesham I. A trial oral communication screening test for schoolhouse entrants. Br Med J (Clin Res Ed). 1981;282(6262):449–451
32. Sachse S, Von Suchodoletz W. Early on identification of language delay by straight language assessment or parent study? J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2008;29(1):34–41
33. Sachse S, Von Suchodoletz W. [Response]. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2009; 30(2):176
34. Westerlund One thousand, Berglund Eastward, Eriksson Thousand. Tin can severely language delayed 3-twelvemonth-olds be identified at xviii months? Evaluation of a screening version of the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Evolution Inventories. J Spoken language Lang Hear Res. 2006;49(2):237–247
35. Wetherby AM, Goldstein H, Clearly J, et al. Early identification of children with communication disorders: Concurrent and predictive validity of the CSBS Developmental Profile. Infants Young Child. 2003;16(2):161–174
36. Alberts FM, Davis BL, Prentice L. Validity of an observation screening instrument in a multicultural population. J Early Interv. 1995;xix(two):168–177
37. Allen DV, Bliss LS. Concurrent validity of two linguistic communication screening tests. J Commun Disord. 1987;20(four):305–317
38. Bliss LS, Allen DV. Screening Kit of Language Evolution: a preschool language screening instrument. J Commun Disord. 1984;17(2):133–141
39. Borowitz KC, Glascoe FP. Sensitivity of the Denver Developmental Screening Test in voice communication and linguistic communication screening. Pediatrics. 1986;78(half-dozen):1075–1078. Available at: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/78/6/1075. Accessed May 2019.
twoscore. Brunt V, Stott CM, Forge J, Goodyer I. The Cambridge Language and Speech Project (CLASP). I. Detection of linguistic communication difficulties at 36 to 39 months. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1996;38(vii):613–631
41. Drumwright A, Van Natta P, Camp B, Frankenburg W, Drexler H. The Denver articulation screening exam. J Spoken language Hear Disord. 1973;38(1):three–14
42. Klee T, Carson DK, Gavin WJ, Hall Fifty, Kent A, Reece S. Concurrent and predictive validity of an early language screening program. J Speech communication Lang Hear Res. 1998;41(3):627–641
43. Klee T, Pearce K, Carson DK. Improving the positive predictive value of screening for developmental language disorder. J Speech communication Lang Hear Res. 2000; 43(4):821–833
44. Laing GJ, Law J, Levin A, Logan Due south. Evaluation of a structured test and a parent led method for screening for speech and language issues: prospective population based study. BMJ. 2002;325(7373):1152
45. Law J. Early language screening in metropolis and Hackney: the concurrent validity of a measure designed for utilise with 2 one/2-year-olds. Child Care Wellness Dev. 1994;20(5):295–308
46. Rescorla 50. The Language Development Survey: a screening tool for delayed linguistic communication in toddlers. J Speech Hear Disord. 1989;54(iv):587–599
47. Rescorla L, Alley A. Validation of the language development survey (LDS): a parent written report tool for identifying language delay in toddlers. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001;44(ii):434–445
48. Stokes SF. Secondary prevention of paediatric language disability: a comparison of parents and nurses every bit screening agents. Eur J Disord Commun. 1997;32(two Spec No):139–158.
49. Stott CM, Merricks MJ, Bolton PF, Goodyer IM. Screening for spoken language and language disorders: the reliability, validity and accuracy of the General Language Screen. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2002;37(2):133–151
fifty. Sturner RA, Heller JH, Funk SG, Layton TL. The Fluharty Preschool Speech communication and Language Screening Test: a population-based validation written report using sample-contained decision rules. J Speech Hear Res. 1993;36(iv):738–745
51. Sturner RA, Funk SG, Green JA. Preschool spoken communication and language screening: further validation of the judgement repetition screening test. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1996;17(6):405–413
52. Ward S. Detecting aberrant auditory behaviours in infancy: the relationship between such behaviours and linguistic development. Br J Disord Commun. 1984;19(iii):237–251
53. Ebell M, Barry H. Likelihood Ratios Function ane: Introduction. Lansing, MI: Office of Medial Education Research and Evolution, College of Human Medicine, Michigan State Academy; 2008. Available at: http://omerad.msu.edu/ebm/index.html. Accessed September 18, 2014.
54. Fricke S, Bowyer-Crane C, Haley AJ, Hulme C, Snowling MJ. Efficacy of language intervention in the early years. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2013; 54(three):280–290
55. Jones M, Onslow M, Packman A, et al. Randomised controlled trial of the Lidcombe programme of early stuttering intervention. BMJ. 2005; 331(7518):659
56. Lewis C, Packman A, Onslow Yard, Simpson JM, Jones M. A phase 2 trial of telehealth delivery of the Lidcombe Programme of Early Stuttering Intervention. Am J Speech communication Lang Pathol. 2008;17(2):139–149
57. Wake G, Tobin S, Girolametto Fifty, et al. Outcomes of population based language promotion for slow to talk toddlers at ages two and three years: Let'due south Learn Language cluster randomised controlled trial. BMJ. 2011;343:d4741
58. Yoder P, Camarata Grand, Gardner East. Treatment effects on speech communication intelligibility and length of utterance in children with specific language and intelligibility impairments. J Early on Interv. 2005;28(1):34–49
59. Wake M, Tobin S, Levickis P, et al. Randomized trial of a population-based, domicile-delivered intervention for preschool language delay. Pediatrics. 2013;132(iv):e895–e904. Available at: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/132/4/e895. Accessed May 2019.
60. Morgan AT, Vogel AP. A Cochrane review of treatment for babyhood apraxia of speech. Eur J Phys Rehabil Med. 2009; 45(1):103–110
61. Gibbard D. Parental-based intervention with pre-school language-delayed children. Eur J Disord Commun. 1994; 29(ii):131–150
62. Girolametto 50, Pearce PS, Weitzman E. Interactive focused stimulation for toddlers with expressive vocabulary delays. J Speech Hear Res. 1996;39(half-dozen):1274–1283
63. Shelton RL, Johnson AF, Ruscello DM, Arndt WB. Assessment of parent-administered listening preparation for preschool children with articulation deficits. J Speech Hear Disord. 1978; 43(2):242–254
64. Robertson SB, Ellis Weismer S. The influence of peer models on the play scripts of children with specific language impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1997;40(1):49–61
65. Glogowska M, Roulstone S, Enderby P, Peters TJ. Randomised controlled trial of customs based speech and linguistic communication therapy in preschool children. BMJ. 2000;321(7266):923–926
66. Virtually D, Rosenbaum P. Effectiveness of speech intervention for phonological disorders: a randomized controlled trial. Dev Med Kid Neurol. 1998;40(five):319–325
67. Girolametto L, Pearce PS, Weitzman Due east. Effects of lexical intervention on the phonology of late talkers. J Spoken communication Lang Hear Res. 1997;40(2):338–348
68. Robertson SB, Ellis Weismer S. Effects of treatment on linguistic and social skills in toddlers with delayed language development. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1999;42(five):1234–1248
69. Onslow M, Packman A, Harrison East, eds. The Lidcombe Program of Early on Stuttering Intervention: A Clinician's Guide. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 2003
70. Macias MM. Developmental Screening Tools, D-PIP Training Workshop. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics; 2006
71. Rescorla Fifty. Late talkers: exercise good predictors of result exist? Dev Disabil Res Rev. 2011;17(ii):141–150
72. Squires J, Potter 50, Bricker D. Ages and Stages Questionnaire user'south guide. Baltimore, MD: Brookes; 1999
73. Sturner RS, Layton TL, Evans AW, et al. Preschool speech and language screening: A review of currently available tests. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1994;3:25–36
74. Fenson 50, Marchman VA, Thal DJ, et al. MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories: Users guide and technical manual. Baltimore, Medico: Brookes; 2007
75. Jackson-Maldonado D, Marchman VA, Fernald LCH. Curt-form versions of the Castilian MacArthur–Bates Chatty Development Inventories. Appl Psycholinguist. 2013; 34(4):837–868.
76. Sturner RA, Kunze L, Funk SG, Greenish JA. Elicited simulated: its effectiveness for speech communication and linguistic communication screening. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1993;35(8):715–726
77. Adams-Chapman I, Bann CM, Vaucher YE, et al. Association between feeding difficulties and language delay in preterm infants using Bayley Scales of Infant Development-Third Edition. J Pediatr. 2013;163(iii):680–685
78. Alston E, James-Roberts IS. Home environments of 10-calendar month-old infants selected by the WILSTAAR screen for pre-language difficulties. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2005;40(two):123–136
79. Campbell TF, Dollaghan CA, Rockette HE, et al. Risk factors for speech delay of unknown origin in iii-year-old children. Child Dev. 2003;74(2):346–357
80. Choudhury Due north, Benasich AA. A family unit assemblage report: the influence of family history and other take a chance factors on linguistic communication development. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003;46(2):261–272
81. Desmarais C, Sylvestre A, Meyer F, Bairati I, Rouleau N. Systematic review of the literature on characteristics of late-talking toddlers. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2008;43(4):361–389
82. Everitt A, Hannaford P, Conti-Ramsden Yard. Markers for persistent specific expressive language filibuster in 3-iv-yearolds. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2013; 48(5):534–553
83. Foster-Cohen SH, Friesen MD, Champion PR, Woodward LJ. High prevalence/low severity language delay in preschool children built-in very preterm. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2010; 31(8):658–667
84. Flim-flam AV, Dodd B, Howard D. Run a risk factors for speech disorders in children. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2002;37(2):117–131
85. Glascoe FP, Leew South. Parenting behaviors, perceptions, and psychosocial take a chance: impacts on immature children'southward development. Pediatrics. 2010;125(two):313–319. Available at: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/2/313. Accessed May 2019.
86. Hammer CS, Farkas G, Maczuga S. The language and literacy development of Head Start children: a written report using the Family unit and Child Experiences Survey database. Lang Speech communication Hear Serv Sch. 2010;41(ane):70–83
87. Harrison LJ, McLeod S. Risk and protective factors associated with speech and language impairment in a nationally representative sample of 4- to 5-year-old children. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2010;53(2):508–529
88. Henrichs J, Rescorla Fifty, Schenk JJ, et al. Examining continuity of early on expressive vocabulary development: the generation R study. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2011;54(3):854–869
89. Kerstjens JM, de Wintertime AF, Bocca-Tjeertes IF, x Vergert EM, Reijneveld SA, Bos AF. Developmental filibuster in moderately preterm-born children at schoolhouse entry. J Pediatr. 2011;159(i):92–98
90. Kerstjens JM, Bos AF, ten Vergert EMJ, de Meer Thousand, Butcher PR, Reijneveld SA. Support for the global feasibility of the Ages and Stages Questionnaire equally developmental screener. Early on Hum Dev. 2009;85(7):443–447
91. Kerstjens JM, de Wintertime AF, Bocca-Tjeertes IF, Bos AF, Reijneveld SA. Risk of developmental delay increases exponentially as gestational age of preterm infants decreases: a cohort study at age four years. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2012;54(12):1096–1101
92. Law J, Blitz R, Anandan C, Cox M, Wood R. Predicting language change between iii and 5 years and its implications for early identification. Pediatrics. 2012; 130(one):e132–e137. Bachelor at: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/130/1/e132. Accessed May 2019.
93. Mossabeb R, Wade KC, Finnegan K, Sivieri Eastward, Abbasi Due south. Linguistic communication development survey provides a useful screening tool for language delay in preterm infants. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 2012;51(7):638–644
94. O'Leary C, Zubrick SR, Taylor CL, Dixon G, Bower C. Prenatal alcohol exposure and language delay in ii-twelvemonth-old children: the importance of dose and timing on take chances. Pediatrics. 2009;123(2):547–554. Bachelor at: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/2/547. Accessed May 2019.
95. Peña ED, Gillam RB, Bedore LM, Bohman TM. Risk for poor performance on a language screening measure for bilingual preschoolers and kindergarteners. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 2011;xx(4):302–314
96. Potijk MR, Kerstjens JM, Bos AF, Reijneveld SA, de Winter AF. Developmental delay in moderately preterm-born children with low socioeconomic status: risks multiply. J Pediatr. 2013;163(5):1289–1295
97. Pruitt SL, Garrity AW, Oetting JB. Family history of speech and linguistic communication impairment in African American children: implications for cess. Top Lang Disord. 2010;thirty(ii):154–164
98. Reilly S, Wake M, Bavin EL, et al. Predicting language at 2 years of age: a prospective community study. Pediatrics. 2007;120(6):e1441–e1449. Available at: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/120/6/e1441. Accessed May 2019.
99. Reilly South, Onslow M, Packman A, et al. Predicting stuttering onset by the age of 3 years: a prospective, community cohort report. Pediatrics. 2009;123(one):270–277. Available at: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/123/one/270. Accessed May 2019.
100. Reilly South, Onslow M, Packman A, et al. Natural history of stuttering to four years of age: a prospective community-based study. Pediatrics. 2013;132(3):460–467. Available at: https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/132/3/460. Accessed May 2019.
101. Roth C, Magnus P, Schjølberg S, et al. Folic acrid supplements in pregnancy and severe language delay in children. JAMA. 2011;306(14):1566–1573
102. Schjølberg Due south, Eadie P, Zachrisson HD, Oyen Every bit, Prior Grand. Predicting linguistic communication development at historic period 18 months: data from the Norwegian Mother and Kid Cohort Study. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2011; 32(v):375–383
103. Singer LT, Siegel AC, Lewis B, Hawkins S, Yamashita T, Baley J. Preschool linguistic communication outcomes of children with history of bronchopulmonary dysplasia and very depression birth weight. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2001;22(1):xix–26
104. Tallal P, Ross R, Curtiss Due south. Familial aggregation in specific language damage. J Voice communication Hear Disord. 1989;54(2):167–173
105. Tomblin JB, Hardy JC, Hein HA. Predicting poor-communication status in preschool children using risk factors present at nascence. J Speech Hear Res. 1991;34(five):1096–1105
106. Tomblin JB, Smith E, Zhang X. Epidemiology of specific linguistic communication damage: prenatal and perinatal adventure factors. J Commun Disord. 1997;30(four):325–343, quiz 343–344
107. van Batenburg-Eddes T, Henrichs J, Schenk JJ, et al. Early baby neuromotor assessment is associated with language and nonverbal cerebral function in toddlers: the Generation R Study. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2013;34(5):326–334
108. Van Lierde KM, Roeyers H, Boerjan South, De Groote I. Expressive and receptive language characteristics in iii-year-old preterm children with extremely low birth weight. Folia Phoniatr Logop. 2009;61(v):296–299
109. Weindrich D, Jennen-Steinmetz C, Laucht M, Esser Thou, Schmidt MH. Epidemiology and prognosis of specific disorders of language and scholastic skills. Eur Kid Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000;9(three):186–194
110. Whitehurst GJ, Arnold DS, Smith M, Fischel JE, Lonigan CJ, Valdez-Menchaca MC. Family history in developmental expressive language filibuster. J Oral communication Hear Res. 1991;34(5):1150–1157
111. Yliherva A, Olsén P, Mäki-Torkko E, Koiranen M, Järvelin MR. Linguistic and motor abilities of depression-birthweight children as assessed past parents and teachers at 8 years of age. Acta Paediatr. 2001;90(12):1440–1449
112. Zambrana IM, Pons F, Eadie P, Ystrom E. Trajectories of language filibuster from age 3 to 5: persistence, recovery and late onset. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2014; 49(3):304–316
113. Zubrick SR, Taylor CL, Rice ML, Slegers DW. Late language emergence at 24 months: an epidemiological written report of prevalence, predictors, and covariates. J Spoken communication Lang Hear Res. 2007;50(6):1562–1592

Render to Table of Contents

Text Clarification.

This figure shows the menstruation of articles through the systematic review process. 1,556 records were identified through database searching: 906 records through PubMed, 7 through Cochrane, 221 through PsycInfo, and 212 through CINAHL; 210 instruments were identified. Instruments were searched past proper name across the database. Additionally, 67 records were identified from the previous study and 35 records were found through a manus search. A full of 161 duplicates were removed. 1,497 records were screened and 942 records were excluded. This included 6 irretrievable abstracts. 555 full-text manufactures were assessed for eligibility and 436 full-text articles were excluded. The reason for exclusion and number of articles excluded is every bit follows: non original research (seventy); not published in English (2); wrong historic period range, likely reason for delay or disorder identified prior to spoken language and language diagnostic procedure, or wrong population of interest (125); wrong comparison (136); wrong blueprint (20); no speech or language component (fifty); wrong geographic setting (10); no accuracy information (13); and commodity irretrievable (10). 115 studies in 119 articles were included in the systematic review. This includes 26 studies that were rated as poor quality.

^aAbstracts of potentially relevant articles reviewed, identified through database searching (1) and other sources (two): (1) Databases include PubMed, Cochrane, PsycInfo, and Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature. (2) Other sources include searching for specific screening instruments, review of reference lists, and suggested by peer reviewers.
^bSome studies are included for more than i cardinal question or contextual question.
^cOne systematic review was the review being updated for this study.

Render to Table of Contents

Musical instrument and Version	Conclusion Cutoff Indicate	Reference	USPSTF Quality Rating	Kid Age	northward	Reference Musical instrument	Sensitivity, % (95% CI)	Specificity, % (95% CI)	Prevalence, %^a	PPV, %^a,b	NPV, %^a,b	PLR, %^a	NLR, %^a
Ages and Stages Questionnaire, 2nd ed.	"Recommended cutoff"	Frisk et al 2009²⁷	Off-white	iv.v y	110	PLS-4 Receptive PLS-4, Expressive	67 (45–88) 73 (54–91)	73 (64–82) 76 (67–85)	16 20	32 43	92 92	2.4 3.0	0.46 0.36
Ages and Stages Questionnaire, Castilian version	NR	Guiberson et al 2011²⁹	Fair	24–35 mo	45	PLS-four, Castilian edition	56 (36–77)	95 (87–100)	51	92^c	67^c	12.4	0.46
Ages and Stages Questionnaire, Spanish version	NR	Guiberson and Rodríguez 2010²⁸	Fair	32–36 mo	48	PLS-four, Spanish edition	59 (38–fourscore)	92 (82–100)	46	87	73	seven.7	44^c
SCS18: Swedish CDI WS	<8 words	Westerlund et al 2006³⁴	Off-white	18 mo	891	Language Ascertainment, iii y	fifty (34–66)	xc (88–92)	4	18^c	89^c	4.8^c	0.56
CDI WS	<19th percentile	Heilmann et al 2005³⁰	Fair	24 mo	100	PLS-3	81 (69–94)	79 (69–89)	38	70^c	89^c	three.9	0.23
ELFRA-2: High german CDI Words and Sentences	<50 words or 50-80 words and grammatical scores below cutoff	Sachse and Von Suchodoletz 2008, 2009^{32, 33}	Good	24–26 mo	117	SETK-2	93 (87–99)	87 (78–97)	59	91^c	89^c	7.3	0.08
Short Form Inventarios del Desarrollo de Habilidades Comunicativas: Spanish CDI WS	NR	Guiberson et al 2011²⁹	Fair	24–35 mo	45	PLS-4, Spanish edition	87 (73–100)	86 (72–100)	51	87^c	86^c	6.iv	0.15
Pilot Inventario–III: Spanish CDI Three	NR	Guiberson and Rodríguez 2010²⁸	Fair	32–36 mo	48	PLS-4, Spanish edition	82 (66–98)	81 (66–96)	46	78	84	4.2^c	0.22^c
General Language Screen	≥two of 11 items endorsed	Stott et al 2002⁴⁹	Fair	36 mo	596	DPII (37 mo) EAT, RDLS, BPVS (45 mo)	75 (67–83) 67 (—^d)	81 (77–84) 68(—^d)	8^c 4^c	47 31	94 91	3.9^c —^d	0.31^c —^d
Parent Language Checklist: previous version of the General Language Screen	1 failed item	Brunt et al 1996⁴⁰	Skilful	36 mo	425	Renfrew Activity Picture Examination, Motorcoach Story, study-derived tests of phonology and comprehension	87 (82–93)	45 (39–51)	32	42	89	i.6	0.28
Infant-Toddler Checklist	NR	Wetherby et al 2003³⁵	Fair	12–17 mo 18–24 mo	151 81	CSBS Behavior Sample	89 (80–97) 86 (75–96)	74 (66–83) 77 (64–90)	35 52	65^c eighty^c	92^c 83^c	iii.v 3.7	0.fifteen 0.xix
Language Evolution Survey	<50 words or no discussion combinations ≥28 screening score	Klee et al 1998⁴² Klee et al 2000^e ⁴³	Fair Fair	24–26 mo 24–26 mo	64 64	Clinical judgment of infant MSEL linguistic communication scales, MLU	91 (74–100) 91 (74–100)	87 (78–96) 96 (91–100)	17 17	59 83	98 98	half dozen.nine 24.1	0.ten 0.09
Language Development Survey Study 2	<50 words or no word combinations	Rescorla and Alley 2001⁴⁷	Fair	25.4 mo	66	RDLS Expressive	94 (84–100)	67 (53–80)	27	52^c	97^c	two.8	0.08
Language Development Survey Written report iii	<50 words or no word combinations	Rescorla 1989⁴⁶	Fair	24–34 mo	81	RDLS Expressive	89 (eighty–98)	86 (75–97)	56	89	86	6.four	0.13
Parent Questionnaire	NR	Stokes 1997⁴⁸	Fair	34–40 mo	381	SLP rating using language sample, RDLS Comprehension	78 (66–89)	91 (88–94)	xiii	56^c	96^c	8.3	0.24
Ward'southward Created Screening Tool	≥ane item	Ward 1984⁵²	Fair	7–23 mo	1070	REEL	lxxx (75–85)	92 (ninety–94)	24^c	75	94	9.vi	0.22

BPVS, British Picture show Vocabulary Scales; CDI, Communicative Development Inventory; WS, Words and Sentences; CSBS, Advice and Symbolic Behavior Scales; DPII, Developmental Profile Ii; Swallow, Edinburgh Articulation Test; ELFRA, Elternfragebogen fur die Fruberkennung von Riskokindern; MLU, mean length of utterances; MSEL, Mullen Scales of Early Learning; NR, non reported; NLR, negative likelihood ratio; NPV, negative predictive value; PLS, Preschool Linguistic communication Scale; PLR, positive likelihood ratio; PPV, positive predictive value; REEL, Receptive Expressive Emergence of Linguistic communication; RDLS, Reynell Developmental Language Scales; SCS18, Swedish Communication Screening at 18 mo of historic period; SETK-ii, Sprachentwicklungstest fur sweijahrige Slindes; SETK-3/5, Sprachentwicklungstest fur drei bis funfjahrige Kinder; SLP, voice communication language pathologist
^a Calculated by EPC authors unless otherwise noted that written report investigators provided information. Prevalence values were not estimated or weighted to reflect sampling
^b Predictive values may be questionable for studies in which prevalence exceeded ten%; the problem arises when investigators cull a random sample of children with negative screens to consummate the reference measures.
^c Report investigators provided data.
^d Could not calculate because of lack of data in commodity.
^{due east} Same data using a dissimilar decision dominion for failing screener.

Render to Table of Contents

Instrument and Version	Decision Cutoff Signal	Reference	USPSTF Quality Rating	Child Age	n	Reference Instrument	Sensitivity, % (95% CI)	Specificity, % (95% CI)	Prevalence, %^a	PPV, %^a,b	NPV, %^a,b	PLR, %^a	NLR, %^a
Battelle Developmental Inventory Screening Test, Receptive	<1 SD	Frisk et al 2009²⁷	Off-white	4.v y	110	PLS-four Receptive PLS-4 Expressive	56 (33–78) 68 (49–88)	lxx (60–79) 86 (79–94)	16 20	26 56	89 92	ane.8 5.0	0.89 0.37
Brigance Preschool Screen, Receptive Expressive	<1 SD	Frisk et al 2009²⁷	Fair	4.5 y	110	PLS-4 Receptive PLS-4 Expressive	61 (39–84) 91 (79–100)	sixty (50–seventy) 78 (70–87)	16 20	23 51	89 97	4.2 0.12	1.5 0.65
Davis Observation Checklist for Texas	NR	Alberts et al 1995³⁶	Fair	52–67 mo	59	MSCA, GFTA, informal language sample	80 (55–100)	98 (94–100)	17	89	96	39.two	0.twenty
Denver Joint Screening Exam	<15th percentile	Drumwright et al 1973⁴¹	Fair	30–72 mo	150	Henja Articulation Test	92 (—^d)	97(—^d)	—^d	—^d	—^d	—^d	—^d
Denver Developmental Screening Test	NR	Borowitz and Glascoe 1986³⁹	Off-white	18–66 mo	71	PLS	46 (34–58)	100 (100–100)	92	100	fifteen	—^east	0.53
Developmental Nurse Screen	NR	Stokes 1997⁴⁸	Off-white	34–forty mo	378	SLP rating using language sample, RDLS Comprehension	76(—^d)	96(—^d)	—^d	80	96	—^d	—^d
Early on Screening Profile Verbal Concepts	<1 SD	Frisk et al 2009²⁷	Fair	4.5 y	110	PLS-4 Auditory	94 (84–100)	68 (59–78)	sixteen	forty	98	3.0	0.08
Fluharty Preschool Screening Test	Failure ≥1 subtests	Allen and Elation 1987³⁷	Fair	36–47 mo	182	SICD	lx (41–79)	81 (75–87)	xiv	33	93	3.1	0.49
FPSLST Articulation	NR	Sturner et al 1993⁵⁰ study 1	Fair	53–68 mo	51	AAPS-R	74(—^d)	96(—^d)	4^c	50	—^d	—^d	—^d
FPSLST Language	NR	Sturner et al 1993⁵⁰ written report 1	Fair	53–68 mo	51	TACL-R	38(—^d)	85(—^d)	17^c	42	—^d	—^d	—^d
FPSLST Articulation	NR	Sturner et al 1993⁵⁰ study 2	Fair	55–69 mo	147	TD	43(—^d)	93(—^d)	5^c	26	—^d	—^d	—^d
FPSLST Language	NR	Sturner et al 1993⁵⁰ study 2	Fair	55–69 mo	147	TOLD-P	17(—^d)	97(—^d)	22^c	50	—^d	—^d	—^d
Northwestern Syntax Screening Test	Failure ≥i subtests	Allen and Bliss 1987³⁷	Off-white	36–47 mo	182	SICD	92 (81–100)	48 (41–56)	14	22	97	1.viii	0.16
SKOLD		Bliss and Allen 1984³⁸	Off-white
Standard English language
SKOLDS30	<11			30–36 mo	47	SICD	100 (100–100)	98 (93–100	6	75		44.0	0
SKOLDS37	<10			37–42 mo	93	SICD	100 (100–100)	91 (85–97)	11	33	100	xi.ane	0
SKOLDS43	<19			43–48 mo	100	SICD	100 (100–100)	93 (88–98)	ix	60	100	fifteen.two	0
African American dialect
SKOLDB30	<9			30–36 mo	75	SICD	89 (68–100)	86 (78–95)	12	47	98	6.5	0.13
SKOLDB37	<xiv			37–42 mo	91	SICD	88 (65–100)	86 (78–92)	9	37	99	6.0	0.xv
SKOLDB43	<xix			43–48 mo	54	SICD	94 (84–100)	78 (64–91)	33	68	97	4.2	0.07
Judgement Repetition Screening Exam	<20th percentile	Sturner et al 1996⁵¹	Fair	54–66 mo	323	AAPS-R ITPA, Bankson	57 (45–69) 62 (45–78)	95 (93–98) 91 (87–94)	xix^c eleven^c	12.5 half-dozen.half dozen	NR NR	0.45 0.42	NR NR
Structured Screening Test	<10	Laing et al 2002⁴⁴	Good		282	RDLS	66 (54–77)	89 (85–94)	23	65	90	vi.2^c	0.38^c
Hackney Early Language Screening Test, earlier version	≤x	Police 1994⁴⁵	Off-white	30 mo	189	RDLS	98 (94–100)	69 (61–77)	26	53	99	iii.17	0.03
Trial Spoken language Screening Examination	<12 elements	Rigby and Chesham 1981³¹	Good	54 mo	438	SLP evaluation of Renfrew, RDLS, Edinburgh Articulation	lxxx (68–92)	93 (91–96)	10	58	98	12.1	0.21

AAPS-R, Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale: Revised; FPLST, Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test; GFTA, Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation; ITPA, Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities; MSCA, McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities; NR, not reported; PLS, Preschool Language Calibration; RDLS, Reynell Developmental Language Scales; SICD, Sequenced Inventory of Communication Development; SKOLD, Screening Kit of Language Evolution; SLP, speech language pathologist; TACL-R, Test for Auditory Comprehension of Language – Revised; TD, Templin-Darley Tests of Articulation Consonant Singles Subtest; TOLD-P, Test of Language Evolution Primary.
^a Calculated by EPC authors unless otherwise noted that study investigators provided data. Prevalence values were not estimated or weighted to reflect sampling
^bPredictive values may exist questionable for studies in which prevalence exceeded 10%; the trouble arises when investigators cull a random sample of children with negative screens to consummate the reference measures.
^c Report investigators provided data.
^d Could not calculate considering of lack of data in article.
^e Calculated as infinity.

Return to Table of Contents