Applying Item Response Theory Modeling to Identify Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder

The fuzzy boundaries of the social (pragmatic) communication disorder (SPCD): Why the picture is still so confusing?

Introduction

Since the introduction of Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder (SPCD) in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th edition (DSM-5) in 2013, a debate has arisen in the scientific community about its usefulness in differential diagnosis for other clinical categories such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Specific Language Impairment (SLI). Indeed, SPCD criteria share a common deficit in communication and pragmatic skills with these diagnostic entities. Available assessment tools seem scarce and not sensitive enough to clarify diagnostic criteria and clinical boundaries. This study aims to review the existing literature on diagnostic screening for SPCD to highlight confounding variables in the domains examined, overlap with other diagnostic entities, and lack of specificity of available assessment tools in identifying the core deficits of the disorder.

Methods

The search strategy was defined by combining the following keywords: "social pragmatic communication disorder," "DSM-5," "differential diagnosis," and "child." The search was performed in three databases: Medline (PubMed), Scopus, and Web of Science. All studies published between 2013 and April 2023, written in English, and with a major focus on SPCD were included in the review.

Results

After the screening for the eligibility, 18 studies were included in the review. Most of these studies aimed to investigate the differential diagnosis between SPCD and other diagnostic categories (e.g., specific language impairment and autism spectrum disorder). Of these researches, only 6 were ad hoc experimental studies, while the others were based on previously collected databases.

Conclusions

SPCD seems to have its own peculiarities and characteristics, indicating its clinical relevance, as emphasized by the DSM-5. However, the lack of specific instruments and a number of confounding variables make it difficult to identify and differentiate SPCD from other diagnostic entities. Further research is needed to overcome the lack of specific clinical instruments and lack of empirical studies.

Prevalence and functional impact of social (pragmatic) communication disorders

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the Children's Communication Checklist-2 (CCC-2) for measuring social-pragmatic communication deficits and to ascertain their prevalence and functional impact in a community sample.

METHODS

We used parent and teacher responses to the CCC-2 to approximate inclusion (poor social-pragmatic skills) and exclusion (poor structural language skills or autistic symptomatology) criteria for social (pragmatic) communication disorder (SPCD). We tested the prevalence of social-pragmatic deficits in a population-based sample of children (n = 386) aged 5-6 years old using CCC-2 algorithms. We also investigated the academic and behavioural profiles of children with broadly defined limitations in social-pragmatic competence on the CCC-2.

RESULTS

Regardless of the diagnostic algorithm used, the resulting prevalence rates for social-pragmatic deficits indicated that very few children had isolated social-communication difficulties (0-1.3%). However, a larger proportion of children (range: 6.1-10.5%) had social-pragmatic skills outside the expected range alongside structural language difficulties and/or autism spectrum symptoms, and this profile was associated with a range of adverse academic and behavioural outcomes.

CONCLUSIONS

A considerable proportion of children in the early years of primary school has social-pragmatic deficits that interfere with behaviour and scholastic activity; however, these rarely occur in isolation. Exclusionary criteria that include structural language may lead to underidentification of individuals with social-pragmatic deficits that may benefit from tailored support and intervention.

Language comprehension in toddlers with significant developmental delays: An IRT approach

PURPOSE

Language comprehension, or the ability to understand spoken language, is critical to a variety of child outcomes. Effective early intervention relies on valid, reliable language comprehension assessment. The purpose of this study was to explore language comprehension in a sample of toddlers with significant developmental delays associated with varied medical conditions.

METHOD

We investigated language comprehension in a sample of 112 toddlers by applying Item Response Theory (IRT) methods to two measures; one standardized and one flexible.

RESULTS

Data from a standardized measure fit the unidimensional model, whereas the flexible measure did not. The overall pattern of results suggested that items related to early social/contextual comprehension are distinct from linguistic comprehension items.

CONCLUSION

Our findings inform clinical practice by underscoring the importance of comprehensive assessment of language comprehension and considering strengths and weaknesses across social/contextual and linguistic comprehension among toddlers with developmental delays.

Pragmatic Language and Social Communication Tests for Students Aged 8–18 Years: A Review of Test Accuracy

Purpose

The accuracy of commercially available pragmatic language and social communication tests was reviewed.

Method

Online sources were searched to identify tests providing stand-alone pragmatic or social communication scores. Test manuals were examined to extract information about clinical and typically developing group comparisons, including sample size, inclusionary/exclusionary criteria, and mean group differences. Classification accuracy metrics, including sensitivity, specificity, optimal cut scores, and likelihood ratios, were reviewed.

Results

Six domain-specific pragmatic language and social communication tests and four omnibus language tests were identified. Test content varied and included video and audio recordings and question-and-answer formats to address hypothetical social vignettes, retell and comprehend narratives, interpret nonliteral language and multiple-meaning words, identify and display emotions, and infer another's perspective. Sample size and inclusionary/exclusionary criteria for comparisons of students with typical development (TD), developmental language disorder (DLD), autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and social (pragmatic) communication disorder (SPCD) varied widely. Mean group differences between TD and ASD or SPCD groups were generally larger (i.e., > 0.5 SD to > 2.0 SD s) than TD and DLD comparisons. Test authors interpreted these results as support for the accuracy of tests to identify deficits associated with ASD and SPCD and not DLD. Classification accuracy was reported for five domain-specific tests. Optimal cut scores ranged from 85 to 92, with adequate sensitivity and specificity (i.e., ≥ 80%); however, positive likelihood ratios and associated confidence intervals revealed limited confidence in reported levels.

Conclusions

Inadequate sample description for comparison and classification studies limit a clinician's ability to compare a student's profile with those in the samples. Although none of the tests meet all standards for test accuracy reviewed in this report, a checklist to guide test selection is provided to assist in identifying the best available test for a student's profile, if a test is needed.