Speech/Language Impairment or Specific Learning Disability? Examining the Usage of Educational Categories

Characteristics of Children and Youth Referred for Language Assessment at Different Ages

PURPOSE

Early detection of language delays is essential, as language is key for academic outcomes, well-being, and societal participation. Previous studies have focused on undetected delays in young children. Much less is known about referrals at older ages. In this study, we aimed to (a) establish how many children are referred at toddler age (2-3 years) and how many at lower elementary (4-7 years), upper elementary (8-12 years), and high school (13-16 years) age; (b) evaluate characteristics of the referred children and adolescents across age groups; and (c) assess whether the ensuing classification (no language disorder [LD], developmental LD, LD + additional problems) differed across age groups.

METHOD

We used the 2010-2014 database of the Dutch federation of speech and hearing centers, containing 18,894 cases with target ages. We established the number of referrals in each age group (Q1) and assessed the composition of the age groups in terms of speech, language, behavioral, and cognitive outcomes (Q2), as well as in terms of classification (Q3). To answer Q2 and Q3, we conducted chi-squared analyses with the toddler group as reference group.

RESULTS

Late-identified LDs exist: There were new referrals in all age groups. Compared to older age groups, the toddler group contained fewer girls and multilingual children. The toddler group also contained fewer children without an LD and more children with LD + additional problems.

CONCLUSIONS

Reassuringly, children with multiple language problems are referred earliest. However, late-identified LDs exist, even at high school age. Girls and multilingual children tend to be missed at younger ages. More work on awareness and identification of language delays is needed, requiring awareness, knowledge, and tools for educational professionals.

A Review of Screeners to Identify Risk of Developmental Language Disorder

PURPOSE

This review aims to comprehensively summarize, compare, and evaluate screeners used to identify risk for developmental language disorder (DLD), a common learning disability that is underidentified. Screening for DLD is a cost-effective way to identify children in need of further assessment and, in turn, provides much needed supports.

METHOD

We identified 15 commercially available English language DLD screeners in North America. We then characterized each screener on 27 aspects in three domains, including (a) accessibility information (acronym, subtest, website, cost, materials included, publish year, examiner qualification, age range, administration time, and administration format), (b) usability features (dialect compatibility, progress monitoring function, actionable follow-up instruction, group assessment capability, and online administration availability), and (c) technical standards (the availability of a technical manual, conceptual definition, the sample size used in classification accuracy calculation, sample distribution, year of sample collection, outcome measure, sample base rate, cutoff score, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value).

RESULTS

We obtained sufficient accessibility information from 14 out of 15 (93%) screeners. In contrast, none of the screeners (0%) included comprehensive usability features. Ten screeners (67%) included a range of classification accuracy (70%-100% sensitivity and 68%-90% specificity). We provided areas of strength and weakness for each screener as a quick reference for users and generated screener recommendations for five practical scenarios.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings presented some DLD screeners that meet most standards and highlight numerous areas for improvement, including improving classification accuracy and clarifying follow-up instructions for children who are identified with DLD risk. Screening for DLD is critical to provide timely early identification, intervention, and classroom support, which in turn facilitates student outcomes.

Where to start: Use of the bilingual multidimensional ability scale (B-MAS) to identify developmental language disorder (DLD) in bilingual children

PURPOSE

The identification of developmental language disorder (DLD) is challenging for clinicians who assess bilinguals. This paper introduces a protocol-based approach, the Bilingual Multidimensional Ability Scale (B-MAS), for expert raters to identify DLD in bilinguals.

METHOD

Three bilingual speech-language pathologists (SLPs) reviewed 166 Spanish-English bilingual children's profiles, which included performance on direct (morphosyntax, semantics, and narrative tasks) and indirect (parent/teacher survey) measures in both languages. A multidimensional scale (0-5) was adopted to rate children's performance. A diagnosis of DLD was made if at least two raters assigned a summary rating of ≤2.

RESULT

Analysis of the scores on the B-MAS resulted in the identification of 21 children as having DLD. Though different strategies were employed to make decisions, the three SLPs demonstrated high inter-rater agreement across different ratings (intraclass correlation coefficient values ranged from .83 to .90).

CONCLUSION

For bilingual populations that are understudied and for which gold standards of assessment are not available, the B-MAS can be adopted as a starting point to study DLD or as a reference standard to develop new assessment tools in that population. Clinically, this protocol could be tailored and evaluated by a group of SLPs serving a large population of a particular bilingual group for diagnostic purposes.

Determining the Diagnostic Accuracy of the Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills for College Students

PURPOSE

This study sought to determine whether the Test of Integrated Language and Literacy Skills (TILLS; Nelson et al., 2016) can accurately identify language disorders in college-aged adults.

METHOD

Fifty-nine college students between the ages of 18 and 23 years were administered the test battery validated by Fidler et al. (2011) for the diagnosis of language disorders as well as the Identification Core (ID Core) subtests of the TILLS validated for ages 12-18 years. Sensitivity and specificity information was calculated for the TILLS at various cut-scores to determine the diagnostic accuracy of the ID Core for this population. Discriminant function analysis was also performed to determine if sensitivity and specificity could be improved using empirically derived discriminant scores.

RESULTS

The recommended cut-score of 42 for ages 12-18 years underidentified individuals with language disorders in this sample. An adjusted cut-score of 51 maximized sensitivity and specificity to acceptable levels. Discriminant function analysis also yielded acceptable sensitivity and specificity (> 80%).

CONCLUSION

Using either an adjusted cut-score for the ID Core or weighted discriminant scores, the TILLS can be used to accurately differentiate between college-aged adults with and without language disorders.

Developmental Language Disorder and Writing: A Scoping Review From Childhood to Adulthood

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to conduct a scoping review of literature focused on the effects of developmental language disorder (DLD) on writing skills across the life span to highlight gaps in our knowledge of how to support writing for this population.

METHOD

We adopted the five-step framework for conducting scoping reviews outlined by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) to identify literature focused on writing outcomes for individuals with DLD in childhood, adolescence, and adulthood.

RESULTS

Seventy-two studies from 1991 to 2022 met review criteria. Results indicated that spelling may be an area of relative weakness for individuals with DLD across the life span. Children and adolescents with DLD also may have relative difficulty with grammar, organization, cohesion, and length of written output. Research on the writing skills of adults with DLD is too sparse to draw broad conclusions about the writing skills of this subset of the population with DLD.

CONCLUSIONS

Overall, research into the writing skills of individuals with DLD is limited, and more information is needed to inform functional evidence-based approaches to assessment and intervention of writing for those with DLD from childhood through adulthood. Additionally, more focus on electronic writing in research is needed, as only two studies included in this review examined typed writing in any form. Results of this review also indicate a need for systematic, uniform approaches to defining and measuring writing skills for those who experience language difficulties.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.23596797.