Published online February 1, 2006
PEDIATRICS Vol. 117 No. 2 February 2006, pp. e298-e319 (doi:10.1542/peds.2005-1467)
This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow An erratum has been published
Right arrow P3Rs: Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when P3Rs are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow E-mail this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to My File Cabinet
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via CrossRef
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, H. D.
Right arrow Articles by Panoscha, R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Nelson, H. D.
Right arrow Articles by Panoscha, R.
Related Collections
Right arrow Developmental/Behavior

Screening for Speech and Language Delay in Preschool Children: Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPHa,b,c, Peggy Nygren, MAa,c, Miranda Walker, BAa,c and Rita Panoscha, MDa,c,d

a Departments of Medical Informatics and Clinical Epidemiology
b Medicine
d Pediatrics
c Oregon Evidence-based Practice Center, Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, Oregon


   ABSTRACT
TOP
 ABSTRACT
METHODS
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
 APPENDIX: USPSTF QUALITY-RATING...
 REFERENCES
 
BACKGROUND. PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; Online, 1098-4275). Published in the public domain by the American Academy of Pediatrics.Speech and language development is a useful indicator of a child's overall development and cognitive ability and is related to school success. Identification of children at risk for developmental delay or related problems may lead to intervention services and family assistance at a young age, when the chances for improvement are best. However, optimal methods for screening for speech and language delay have not been identified, and screening is practiced inconsistently in primary care.

PURPOSE. We sought to evaluate the strengths and limits of evidence about the effectiveness of screening and interventions for speech and language delay in preschool-aged children to determine the balance of benefits and adverse effects of routine screening in primary care for the development of guidelines by the US Preventive Services Task Force. The target population includes all children up to 5 years old without previously known conditions associated with speech and language delay, such as hearing and neurologic impairments.

METHODS. Studies were identified from Medline, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases (1966 to November 19, 2004), systematic reviews, reference lists, and experts. The evidence review included only English-language, published articles that are available through libraries. Only randomized, controlled trials were considered for examining the effectiveness of interventions. Outcome measures were considered if they were obtained at any time or age after screening and/or intervention as long as the initial assessment occurred while the child was ≤5 years old. Outcomes included speech and language measures and other functional and health outcomes such as social behavior. A total of 745 full-text articles met our eligibility criteria and were reviewed. Data were extracted from each included study, summarized descriptively, and rated for quality by using criteria specific to different study designs developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force.

RESULTS. The use of risk factors for selective screening has not been evaluated, and a list of specific risk factors to guide primary care physicians has not been developed or tested. Sixteen studies about potential risk factors for speech and language delay in children enrolled heterogeneous populations, had dissimilar inclusion and exclusion criteria, and measured different risk factors and outcomes. The most consistently reported risk factors included a family history of speech and language delay, male gender, and perinatal factors. Other risk factors reported less consistently included educational levels of the mother and father, childhood illnesses, birth order, and family size.

The performance characteristics of evaluation techniques that take ≤10 minutes to administer were described in 24 studies relevant to screening. Studies that were rated good to fair quality reported wide ranges of sensitivity and specificity when compared with reference standards (sensitivity: 17–100%; specificity: 45–100%). Most of the evaluations, however, were not designed for screening purposes, the instruments measured different domains, and the study populations and settings were often outside of primary care. No "gold standard" has been developed and tested for screening, reference standards varied across studies, few studies compared the performance of ≥2 screening techniques in 1 population, and comparisons of a single screening technique across different populations are lacking.

Fourteen good- and fair-quality randomized, controlled trials of interventions reported significantly improved speech and language outcomes compared with control groups. Improvement was demonstrated in several domains including articulation, phonology, expressive language, receptive language, lexical acquisition, and syntax among children in all age groups studied and across multiple therapeutic settings. Improvement in other functional outcomes such as socialization skills, self-esteem, and improved play themes were demonstrated in some, but not all, of the 4 studies that measured them. In general, studies of interventions were small and heterogeneous, may be subject to plateau effects, and reported short-term outcomes based on various instruments and measures. As a result, long-term outcomes are not known, interventions could not be compared directly, and generalizability is questionable.

Conclusions. Use of risk factors to guide selective screening is not supported by studies. Several aspects of screening have been inadequately studied to determine optimal methods, including which instrument to use, the age at which to screen, and which interval is most useful. Trials of interventions demonstrate improvement in some outcome measures, but conclusions and generalizability are limited. Data are not available addressing other key issues including the effectiveness of screening in primary care settings, role of enhanced surveillance by primary care physicians before referral for diagnostic evaluation, non–speech and language and long-term benefits of interventions, and adverse effects of screening and interventions.

Key Words: speech and language delay and disorders • preschool children • screening • interventions

Abbreviations: USPSTF—US Preventive Services Task Force • RCT—randomized controlled trial • SES—socioeconomic status • SMD—standard mean difference • CI—confidence interval

Speech and language development is considered by experts to be a useful indicator of a child's overall development and cognitive ability1 and is related to school success.2–7 Identification of children at risk for developmental delay or related problems may lead to intervention services and family assistance at a young age when chances for improvement are best.1 This rationale supports preschool screening for speech and language delay, or primary language impairment/disorder, as a part of routine well-child care.

Several types of speech and language delay and disorders have been described,8 although terminology varies (Table 1). Expressive language delay may exist without receptive language delay, but often they occur together in children as a mixed expressive/receptive language delay. Some children also have disordered language. Language problems can involve difficulty with grammar (syntax), words or vocabulary (semantics), the rules and system for speech sound production (phonology), units of word meaning (morphology), and the use of language particularly in social contexts (pragmatics). Speech problems may include stuttering or dysfluency, articulation disorders, or unusual voice quality. Language and speech problems can exist together or by themselves.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 1 Definitions of Terms

 
Prevalence rates for speech and language delay have been reported across wide ranges. A recent Cochrane review summarized prevalence data on speech delay, language delay, and combined delay in preschool- and school-aged children.9 For preschool-aged children, 2 to 4.5 years old, studies that evaluated combined speech and language delay have reported prevalence rates ranging from 5% to 8%,10,11 and studies of language delay have reported prevalence rates ranging from 2.3% to 19%.9,12–15 Untreated speech and language delay in preschool children has shown variable persistence rates (from 0% to 100%), with most studies reporting 40% to 60%.9 In 1 study, two thirds of preschool-aged children who were referred for speech and language therapy and given no direct intervention proved eligible for therapy 12 months later.16

Preschool-aged children with speech and language delay may be at increased risk for learning disabilities once they reach school age.17 They may have difficulty reading in grade school,2 exhibit poor reading skills at age 7 or 8,3–5 and have difficulty with written language,6 in particular. This may lead to overall academic underachievement7 and, in some cases, lower IQ scores13 that may persist into young adulthood.18 As adults, children with phonological difficulties may hold lower-skilled jobs than their non–language-impaired siblings.19 In addition to persistent speech- and language-related underachievement (verbal, reading, spelling), language-delayed children have also shown more behavior problems and impaired psychosocial adjustment.20,21

Assessing children for speech and language delay and disorders can involve a number of approaches, although there is no uniformly accepted screening technique for use in the primary care setting. Milestones for speech and language development in young children are generally acknowledged.22 Concerns for delay arise if there are no verbalizations by the age of 1, if speech is not clear, or if speech or language is different from that of other children of the same age. Parent questionnaires and parent concern are often used to detect delay.23 Most formal instruments were designed for diagnostic purposes and have not been widely evaluated for screening. Instruments constructed to assess multiple developmental components, such as the Ages and Stages Questionnaire,24 Clinical Adaptive Test/Clinical Linguistic and Auditory Milestone Scale,25 and Denver Developmental Screening Test,26 include speech and language components. Instruments designed specific for communication domains include the McArthur Communicative Development Inventory,27 Ward Infant Language Screening Test, Assessment, Acceleration, and Remediation (WILSTAAR),28 Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test,29 Early Language Milestone Scale,30 and several others.

A specific diagnosis is made most often by a speech and language specialist using a battery of instruments. Once a child has been diagnosed with a speech and/or language delay, interventions may be prescribed. Therapy takes place in various settings including speech and language specialty clinics, home, and schools or classrooms. Direct therapy or group therapy provided by a clinician, caretaker, or teacher can be child-centered and/or include peer and family components. The duration of the intervention varies. Intervention strategies focus on ≥1 domains depending on individual needs, such as expressive language, receptive language, phonology, syntax, and lexical acquisition. Therapies can include naming objects, modeling and prompting, individual or group play, discrimination tasks, reading, and conversation.

It is not clear how consistently clinicians screen for speech and language delay in primary care practice. In 1 study, 43% of parents reported that their young child (aged 10–35 months) did not receive any type of developmental assessment at their well-child visit, and 30% of parents reported that their child's physician had not discussed how the child communicates.31 Potential barriers to screening include lack of time, no clear protocols, and the competing demands of the primary care visit.

This evidence review focuses on the strengths and limits of evidence about the effectiveness of screening and interventions for speech and language delay in preschool-aged children. Its objective is to determine the balance of benefits and adverse effects of routine screening in primary care for the development of guidelines by the US Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). The target population includes all children up to 5 years old without previously known conditions associated with speech and language delay, such as hearing and neurologic impairments. The evidence synthesis emphasizes the patient's perspective in the choice of tests, interventions, outcome measures, and potential adverse effects and focuses on those that are available and easily interpreted in the context of primary care. It also considers the generalizability of efficacy studies performed in controlled or academic settings and interprets the use of the tests and interventions in community-based populations seeking primary health care.


   METHODS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
 APPENDIX: USPSTF QUALITY-RATING...
 REFERENCES
 
Analytic Framework and Key Questions
Evidence reviews for the USPSTF follow a specific methodology32 beginning with the development of an analytic framework and key questions in collaboration with members of the USPSTF. The analytic framework represents an outline of the evidence review and includes the patient population, interventions, outcomes, and adverse effects of the screening process (Fig 1). Corresponding key questions examine a chain of evidence about the effectiveness, accuracy, and feasibility of screening children aged 5 years and younger for speech and language delay in primary care settings (key questions 1 and 2), adverse effects of screening (key question 3), the role of enhanced surveillance in primary care (key question 4), effectiveness of interventions for children identified with delay (key questions 5, 6, and 7), and adverse effects of interventions (key question 8).


Figure 1
View larger version (39K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		FIGURE 1 Analytic framework and key questions. The analytic framework represents an outline of the evidence review and includes the patient population, interventions, outcomes, and adverse effects of the screening process. The key questions examine a chain of evidence about the effectiveness, accuracy, and feasibility of screening children aged 5 years and younger for speech and language delay in primary care settings (key questions 1 and 2), adverse effects of screening (key question 3), the role of enhanced surveillance in primary care (key question 4), effectiveness of interventions for children identified with delay (key questions 5, 6, and 7), and adverse effects of interventions (key question 8).

 
Studies addressing key question 1, corresponding to the overarching arrow in Fig 1, would include all components in the continuum of the screening process, including the screening evaluation, diagnostic evaluation for children identified with delay by the screening evaluation, interventions for children diagnosed with delay, and outcome measures allowing determination of the effectiveness of the overall screening process. Enhanced surveillance in primary care relates to the practice of closely observing children who may have clinical concern for delay but not of the degree warranting a referral ("watchful waiting"). Outcome measures in this review include speech- and language-specific outcomes as well as non–speech and language health and functional outcomes such as social behavior, self-esteem, family function, peer interaction, and school performance. Key question 5 examines whether speech and language interventions lead to improved speech and language outcomes. Key question 6 examines whether speech and language interventions lead to improved non–speech and language outcomes. Key question 7 evaluates the subsequent effects of improved speech and language, such as improved school performance at a later age.

Literature Search and Selection
Relevant studies were identified from multiple searches of Medline, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases (1966 to November 19, 2004). Search terms were determined by the investigators and a research librarian and are described elsewhere.33 Articles were also obtained from recent systematic reviews,34,35 reference lists of pertinent studies, reviews, editorials, and Web sites and by consulting experts. In addition, the investigators attempted to collect instruments and accompanying manuals; however, these materials are not generally available and must be purchased, which limited the evidence review to published articles.

The investigators reviewed all abstracts that were identified by the searches and determined eligibility of full-text articles based on several criteria. Eligible articles had English-language abstracts, were applicable to US clinical practice, and provided primary data relevant to key questions. Studies of children with previously diagnosed conditions known to cause speech and language delay (eg, autism, mental retardation, fragile X syndrome, hearing loss, degenerative and other neurologic disorders) were not included because the scope of this review is screening children without known diagnoses.

Studies of risk factors were included if they focused on children aged 5 years or younger, reported associations between predictor variables and speech and language outcomes, and were relevant to selecting candidates for screening. Otitis media as a risk factor for speech and language delay is a complex and controversial area and was not included in this review.

Studies of techniques to assess speech and language were included if they focused on children aged 5 years and younger, could be applied to a primary care setting, used clearly defined measures, compared the screening technique to an acceptable reference standard, and reported data that allowed calculation of sensitivity and specificity. Techniques that take ≤10 minutes to complete and could be administered in a primary care setting by nonspecialists are most relevant to screening and are described in this report. Instruments that take >10 minutes and up to 30 minutes or for which administration time was not reported are described elsewhere.33 In general, if the instrument was administered by primary care physicians, nurses, research associates, or other nonspecialists for the study, it was assumed that it could be administered by nonspecialists in a clinic. For questionable cases, experts in the field were consulted to help determine appropriateness for primary care. Studies of broader developmental screening instruments such as the Ages and Stages Questionnaire and Denver Developmental Screening Test were included if they provided outcomes related to speech and language delay specifically.

Only randomized, controlled trials (RCTs) were considered for examining the effectiveness of interventions. Outcome measures were considered if they were obtained at any time or age after screening and/or intervention as long as the initial assessment occurred while the child was ≤5 years old. Outcomes included speech and language measures as well as other functional and health outcomes as described previously.

Data Extraction and Synthesis
Investigators reviewed 5377 abstracts that were identified by the searches. A total of 690 full-text articles from searches and an additional 55 nonduplicate articles from reference lists and experts met eligibility criteria and were reviewed. Data were extracted from each study, entered into evidence tables, and summarized by descriptive methods. For some studies of screening instruments, sensitivity and specificity were calculated by the investigators if adequate data were presented in the article. No statistical analyses were performed because of the heterogeneity of studies. The investigators independently rated the quality of studies by using criteria specific to different study designs developed by the USPSTF (Appendix).32 The quality of the study does not necessarily indicate the quality of an instrument or intervention but may influence interpretation of the results of the study.


   RESULTS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
CONCLUSIONS
 APPENDIX: USPSTF QUALITY-RATING...
 REFERENCES
 
Key Question 1: Does Screening for Speech and Language Delay Result in Improved Speech and Language as well as Improved Other Non–Speech and Language Outcomes?
No studies directly addressed this question.

Key Question 2: Do Screening Evaluations in the Primary Care Setting Accurately Identify Children for Diagnostic Evaluation and Interventions?
Key Question 2a: Does Identification of Risk Factors Improve Screening?
Nine studies conducted in English-speaking populations36–44 and 7 studies from non–English-speaking populations45–51 met inclusion criteria (Table 2). The most consistently reported risk factors include a family history of speech and language delay, male gender, and perinatal risk factors; however, their role in screening is unclear. A list of specific risk factors to guide primary care physicians in selective screening has not been developed or tested.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 2 Summary of Studies of Risk Factors

 
English-language studies include case-control,37,39–41,43 cross-sectional,36,38,42 and prospective-cohort44 designs. Most studies evaluated risk for language delay with or without speech delay, and 1 restricted the evaluation to expressive language only.44 Family history was the most consistent significantly associated risk factor in 5 of 7 studies that examined it.37,39,41–43 Family history was defined as family members who were late to talk or had language disorders, speech problems, or learning problems. Male gender was a significant factor in all 3 of the studies that examined it.37,39,42 Three37,41,43 of 5 studies reported an association between lower maternal education level and language delay, and 3 studies41–43 of 4 that evaluated paternal education level reported a similar relationship. Other associated risk factors that were reported less consistently included childhood illnesses,36,40 born late in the family birth order,42 family size,39 older parents39 or younger mother43 at birth, and low socioeconomic status (SES) or minority race.40 One study that evaluated history of asthma found no association with speech and language delay.39

The 7 studies that assessed risk in non–English-speaking populations included case-control,47 cross-sectional,45 prospective-cohort,48–51 and concurrent-comparison46 designs. Studies evaluated several types of delay including vocabulary,46 speech,45 stuttering,47 language,48–51 and learning.49–51 Significant associations were reported in the 2 studies that evaluated family history45,48 and 1 of 2 studies that evaluated male gender.51 Three of 4 non–English-language studies, including a cohort of >8000 children in Finland,51 reported significant associations with perinatal risk factors such as prematurity,50,51 birth difficulties,45 low birth weight,50,51 and sucking habits.45 An association with perinatal risk factors was not found in the 1 English-language study that examined low birth weight.43 Other associated risk factors that were reported less consistently include parental education level49,50 and family factors such as size and overcrowding.50,51 These studies did not find associations with the mother's stuttering or speaking style or rate,47 the mother's age,51 or child temperament.46

Key Questions 2b and 2c: What Are Screening Techniques and How Do They Differ by Age? What Is the Accuracy of Screening Techniques and How Does It Vary by Age?
A total of 22 articles that reported performance characteristics of 24 evaluations met inclusion criteria.33 The studies used several different standardized and nonstandardized instruments (Table 3), although many were not designed specifically for screening purposes. Results of the instruments were compared with those of a variety of reference standards, and no "gold standard" was acknowledged or used across studies, which limited comparisons between them.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 3 Instruments Used in Studies

 
The studies provided limited demographic details of subjects, and most included predominantly white children with similar proportions of boys and girls. One study enrolled predominantly black children52 and another children from rural areas.53 Study sizes ranged from 25 subjects54 to 2590 subjects.11 Testing was conducted in general health clinics, specialty clinics, day care centers, schools, and homes by pediatricians, nurses, speech and language specialists, psychologists, health visitors, medical or graduate students, teachers, parents, and research assistants. Studies are summarized below by age categories according to the youngest ages included, although many studies included children in overlapping age categories.

Ages 0 to 2 Years
Eleven studies from 10 publications used instruments that take ≤10 minutes to administer for children up to 2 years old, including the Early Language Milestone Scale,30,55 Parent Evaluation of Developmental Status,56 Denver Developmental Screening Test II (language component),57 Pediatric Language Acquisition Screening Tool for Early Referral,52 Clinical Linguistic and Auditory Milestone Scale,58 Language Development Survey,59–61 Development Profile II,57 and the Bayley Infant Neurodevelopmental Screener62 (Table 4). Of these studies, 6 tested expressive and/or receptive language,30,52,55,57,62 3 tested expressive vocabulary,59–61 1 tested expressive language and articulation,56 and 1 tested syntax and pragmatics.58


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 4 Studies of Screening Instruments for Children Up to 2 Years Old

 
For the 10 fair- and good-quality studies that provided data to determine sensitivity and specificity, sensitivity ranged from 22% to 97% and specificity ranged from 66% to 97%.30,52,56–62 Four studies reported sensitivity and specificity of ≥80% when using the Early Language Milestone Scale,30 the Language Development Survey,59,60 and the Clinical Linguistic and Auditory Milestone Scale.58 The study of the Clinical Linguistic and Auditory Milestone Scale also determined sensitivity and specificity by age and reported higher sensitivity/specificity at 14 to 24 months of age (83%/93%) than 25 to 36 months of age (68%/89%) for receptive function but lower sensitivity/specificity at 14 to 24 months of age (50%/91%) than 25 to 36 months of age (88%/98%) for expressive function.58 A study that tested expressive vocabulary by using the Language Development Survey indicated higher sensitivity/specificity at 2 years of age (83%/97%) than at 3 years of age (67%/93%).60

Ages 2 to 3 Years
Ten studies in 9 publications used instruments that take ≤10 minutes to administer for children aged 2 to 3, including the Parent Language Checklist,11 Structured Screening Test,63 Levett-Muir Language Screening Test,64 Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test,53,65 Screening Kit of Language Development,66 Hackney Early Language Screening Test,54,67 and Early Language Milestone Scale68 (Table 5). All the studies tested expressive and/or receptive language.11,53,54,63–68 In addition, 3 studies tested articulation,53,65 and 1 studied syntax and phonology.64


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 5 Studies of Screening Instruments for Children 2 to 3 Years Old

 
For the 8 fair- and good-quality studies that provided data to determine sensitivity and specificity, sensitivity ranged from 17% to 100% and specificity ranged from 45% to 100%. Two studies reported sensitivity and specificity of ≥80% when using the Levett-Muir Language Screening Test64 and the Screening Kit of Language Development.66 The study of the Screening Kit of Language Development reported comparable sensitivity/specificity at 30 to 36 months (100%/98%), 37 to 42 months (100%/91%), and 43 to 48 months of age (100%/93%).66

Ages 3 to 5 Years
Three studies used instruments that take ≤10 minutes to administer, including the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test,69 Test for Examining Expressive Morphology,70 and the Sentence Repetition Screening Test71 (Table 6). Of these studies, 2 tested expressive and receptive language and articulation,69,71 and 1 tested expressive vocabulary and syntax.70 The 2 fair-quality studies reported sensitivity ranging from 57% to 62% and specificity ranging from 80% to 95%.66,69,71


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 6 Studies of Screening Instruments for Children 3 to 5 Years Old

 
Systematic Review
A Cochrane systematic review of 45 studies, including most of the studies cited above, summarized the sensitivity and specificity of instruments that take ≤30 minutes to administer.34 Sensitivity of the instruments for normally developing children ranged from 17% to 100% and for children from clinical settings it ranged from 30% to 100%. Specificity ranged from 43% to 100% and 14% to 100%, respectively. Studies considered to be of higher quality tended to have higher specificity than sensitivity (t = 4.41; P < .001); however, high false-positive and false-negative rates were reported often.34

Key Question 2d: What Are the Optimal Ages and Frequency for Screening?
No studies addressed this question.

Key Question 3: What Are the Adverse Effects of Screening?
No studies addressed this question. Potential adverse effects include false-positive and false-negative results. False-positive results can erroneously label children with normal speech and language as impaired, potentially leading to anxiety for children and families and additional testing and interventions. False-negative results would miss identifying children with impairment, potentially leading to progressive speech and language delay and other long-term effects including communication, social, and academic problems. In addition, once delay is identified, children may be unable to access services because of unavailability or lack of insurance coverage.

Key Question 4: What Is the Role of Enhanced Surveillance by Primary Care Clinicians?
No studies addressed this question.

Key Question 5: Do Interventions for Speech and Language Delay Improve Speech and Language Outcomes?
Twenty-five RCTs in 24 publications met inclusion criteria, including 1 rated good,72 13 rated fair,73–85 and 11 rated poor quality77,86–95 (Table 7). Studies were considered to be of poor quality if they reported important differences between intervention and comparison groups at baseline, did not use intention-to-treat analysis, no method of randomization was reported, or there were <10 subjects in the intervention or comparison groups. Limitations of studies, in general, include small numbers of participants (only 4 studies enrolled >50 subjects), lack of consideration of potential confounders, and disparate methods of assessment, intervention, and outcome measurement. As a result, conclusions about effectiveness are limited. Although children in the studies ranged from 18 to 75 months old, most studies included children 2 to 4 years old, and their results do not allow for determination of the optimal ages of intervention.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		TABLE 7 RCTs of Interventions

 
The studies evaluated the effects of individual or group therapy directed by clinicians and/or parents that focused on specific speech and language domains. These domains included expressive and receptive language, articulation, phonology, lexical acquisition, and syntax. Several studies used established approaches to therapy such as the Ward Infant Language Screening Test, Assessment, Acceleration, and Remediation program96 and the Hanen principles.78,79,85,93 Others used more theoretical approaches such as focused stimulation,78,79,86,87,93 auditory discrimination,83,90 imitation or modeling procedures,76,92 auditory processing or work mapping,85 and play narrative language.80,81 Some interventions focused on specific words and sounds, used unconventional methods, or targeted a specific deficit.

Outcomes were measured by subjective reports from parents77,78,80,85 and by scores on standardized instruments such as the Reynell Expressive and Receptive Scales,74,77 the Preschool Language Scale,72,75,85 and the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories.80,93 The most widely used outcome measure was mean-length utterances, used by 6 studies.73,75,77,80,85

Studies rated as good or fair quality are described below by age categories according to the youngest ages included, although many studies included children in overlapping categories

Ages 0 to 2 Years
No studies examined this age group exclusively, although 1 good-quality study enrolled children who were 18 to 42 months old.72 The clinician-directed, 12-month intervention consisted of 10-minute weekly sessions focusing on multiple language domains, expressive and receptive language, and phonology. Treatment for receptive auditory comprehension lead to significant improvement for the intervention group compared with the control group; however, results did not differ between groups for several expressive and phonology outcomes.72

Ages 2 to 3 Years
One good72 and 6 fair-quality77–80,84,85 studies evaluated speech and language interventions for children who were 2 to 3 years old. The studies reported improvement on a variety of communication domains including clinician-directed treatment for expressive and receptive language,80 parent-directed therapy for expressive delay,77,78 and clinician-directed receptive auditory comprehension.72 Lexical acquisition was improved with both clinician-directed84,91 and group therapy approaches.84 In 3 studies, there were no between-group differences for clinician-directed expressive72,85 or receptive language therapy,72,85 parent-directed expressive or receptive therapy,85 or parent-directed phonology treatment.79

Ages 3 to 5 Years
Five fair-quality studies reported significant improvements for children who were 3 to 5 years old and undergoing interventions compared with controls,73,74,76,81,82 whereas 2 studies reported no differences.75,83 Both group-based81 and clinician-directed74 interventions were successful in improving expressive and receptive competencies.

Systematic Review
A Cochrane systematic review included a meta-analysis using data from 25 RCTs of interventions for speech and language delay for children up to adolescence.35 Twenty-three of these studies72–92,95 also met criteria for this review and are included in Table 7, and 2 trials were unpublished. The review reported results in terms of standard mean differences (SMDs) in scores for a number of domains (phonology, syntax, and vocabulary). Effectiveness was considered significant for both the phonological (SMD: 0.44; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.01–0.86) and vocabulary (SMD: 0.89; 95% CI: 0.21–1.56) interventions. Less effective was the receptive intervention (SMD: –0.04; 95% CI: 0.64–0.56), and results were mixed for the expressive syntax intervention (SMD: 1.02; 95% CI: 0.04–2.01). When interventions were comparable in duration and intensity, there were no differences between interventions when they were administered by trained parents or clinicians for expressive delays. Use of normal-language peers as part of the intervention strategy also proved beneficial.81

Key Question 6: Do Interventions for Speech and Language Delay Improve Other Non–Speech and Language Outcomes?
Four good-72 or fair-quality80,81,85 intervention studies included functional outcomes other than speech and language. Increased toddler socialization skills,80 improved child self-esteem,85 and improved play themes81 were reported for children in intervention groups in 3 studies. Improved parent-related functional outcomes included decreased stress80 and increased positive feelings toward their children.85 Functional outcomes that were studied but did not show significant treatment effects included well-being, levels of play and attention, and socialization skills in 1 study.72

Key Question 7: Does Improvement in Speech and Language Outcomes Lead to Improved Additional Outcomes?
No studies addressed this question.

Key Question 8: What Are the Adverse Effects of Interventions?
No studies addressed this question. Potential adverse effects of treatment programs include the impact of time and cost of interventions on clinicians, parents, children, and siblings. Loss of time for play and family activities, stigmatization, and labeling may also be potential adverse effects.


   CONCLUSIONS
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
APPENDIX: USPSTF QUALITY-RATING...
 REFERENCES
 
Studies are not available that address the overarching key question about the effectiveness of screening (key question 1), adverse effects of screening (key question 3), the role of enhanced surveillance in primary care (key question 4), long-term effectiveness of interventions on non–speech and language outcomes for children identified with delay (key question 7), and adverse effects of interventions (key question 8). No studies have determined the optimal ages and frequency for screening (key question 2d). Relevant studies are available regarding the use of risk factors for screening (key question 2a), techniques for screening (key questions 2b and 2c), and effectiveness of interventions on short-term speech and language and non–speech and language outcomes for children identified with delay (key questions 5 and 6).

The use of risk factors for selective screening has not been evaluated, and a list of specific risk factors to guide primary care physicians has not been developed or tested. Sixteen studies about potential risk factors for speech and language delay in children enrolled heterogeneous populations, had dissimilar inclusion and exclusion criteria, and measured different risk factors and outcomes. The most consistently reported risk factors included a family history of speech and language delay, male gender, and perinatal factors. Other risk factors that were reported less consistently include educational levels of the mother and father, childhood illnesses, birth order, and family size.

Although brief evaluations are available and have been used in a number of settings with administration by professional and nonprofessional individuals, including parents, the optimal method of screening for speech and language delay has not been established. The performance characteristics of evaluation techniques that take ≤10 minutes to administer were described in 24 studies that were relevant to screening. The studies that were rated as good to fair quality reported wide ranges of sensitivity and specificity when compared with reference standards (sensitivity: 17–100%; specificity: 45–100%). In these studies, the instruments that provided the highest sensitivity and specificity included the Early Language Milestone Scale, Clinical Linguistic and Auditory Milestone Scale, Language Development Survey, Screening Kit of Language Development, and the Levett-Muir Language Screening Test. Most of the evaluations, however, were not designed for screening purposes, the instruments measured different domains, and the study populations and settings were often outside primary care. No gold standard has been developed and tested for screening, reference standards varied across studies, few studies compared the performance of ≥2 screening techniques in 1 population, and comparisons of a single screening technique across different populations are lacking.

RCTs of multiple types of interventions reported significantly improved speech and language outcomes compared with control groups. Improvement was demonstrated in several domains including articulation, phonology, expressive language, receptive language, lexical acquisition, and syntax among children in all age groups studied and across multiple therapeutic settings. However, studies were small and heterogeneous, may be subject to plateau effects, and reported short-term outcomes based on various instruments and measures. As a result, long-term outcomes are not known, interventions could not be directly compared to determine optimal approaches, and generalizability is questionable.

There are many limitations of the literature relevant to screening for speech and language delay in preschool-aged children, including a lack of studies specific to screening as well as difficulties inherent in this area of research. This evidence review is limited by the use of only published studies of instruments and interventions. Data about performance characteristics of instruments, in particular, are not generally accessible and are often only available in manuals that must be purchased. Interventions vary widely and may not be generalizable. In addition, studies from countries with different health care systems, such as the United Kingdom, may not translate well to US practice.

Although speech and language development is multidimensional, the individual constructs that comprise it are often assessed separately. Numerous evaluation instruments and interventions that accommodate children across a wide range of developmental stages have been developed to identify and treat specific abnormalities of these functions. As a result, studies include many different instruments and interventions that most often are designed for purposes other than screening. Also, studies of interventions typically focus on 1 or a few interventions. In clinical practice, children are provided with individualized therapies consisting of multiple interventions. The effectiveness of these complex interventions may be difficult to evaluate. Adapting the results of this heterogeneous literature to determine benefits and adverse effects of screening is problematic. Also, behavioral interventions are difficult to conduct in long-term randomized trials, and it is not possible to blind parents or clinicians. Randomly assigning children to therapy or control groups when clinical practice standards support therapy raises ethical dilemmas.

Speech and language delay is defined by measurements on diagnostic instruments in terms of a position on a normal distribution. Measures and terminology are used inconsistently, and there is no recognized gold standard. This is challenging when defining cases and determining performance characteristics of screening instruments in studies.

Identification of speech and language delay may be associated with benefits and adverse effects that would not be captured by studies of clinical or health outcomes. The process of screening alerts physicians and caretakers to developmental milestones and focuses attention on the child's development, potentially leading to increased surveillance, feelings of caregiver support, and improved child self-esteem. Alternatively, caretakers and children may experience increased anxiety and stress during the screening and evaluation process. Detection of other conditions during the course of speech and language evaluation, such as hearing loss, is an unmeasured benefit if appropriate interventions can improve the child's status.

Future research should focus on determining optimal approaches of identifying preschool-aged children with speech and language delay in primary care settings who would be appropriate candidates for additional evaluations and possibly speech and language interventions. These approaches should be integrated into routine developmental surveillance practices of clinicians who care for children.97 Studies that evaluate the effectiveness of validated brief screening instruments that include child and caretaker components could lead to a more standardized approach. Studies of specific speech and language components of currently available broad developmental screening instruments, such as the Ages and Stages Questionnaire, would be useful. Incorporation of risk factors and parent report in studies of screening approaches could provide information about their added value. Additional studies that compare screening instruments and methods in large primary care populations could lead to defining gold standards and acceptable referral criteria. Evaluating these criteria in different populations of children would minimize cultural and language biases.

Additional work about the effectiveness of interventions, including speech and language domain-specific results, may provide new insights. School-based efforts could be designed to complement strategies developed for young children improving long-term outcomes. Results of these studies may help determine optimal ages and intervals for screening. Functional long-term outcomes such as school performance, high school–graduation rates, in-grade retention, special education placement/duration, and social adjustment need to be addressed more thoroughly. Cost-effectiveness evaluations of effective approaches that consider cost of treatment, the time that caregivers spend in transit to treatment locations, the time they spend participating in the program on site or in the home, and long-term outcomes, among other factors, would be useful.


   APPENDIX: USPSTF QUALITY-RATING CRITERIA
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
 APPENDIX: USPSTF QUALITY-RATING...
REFERENCES
 
Diagnostic Accuracy Study Criteria

Definition of Ratings Based on the Diagnostic Accuracy Study Criteria
Good
Evaluates a relevant, available screening test; uses a credible reference standard; interprets the reference standard independently of screening test; assesses the reliability of the test; has few or handles indeterminate results in a reasonable manner; and includes a large number (>100) of broad-spectrum patients with and without disease.

Fair
Evaluates a relevant, available screening test; uses reasonable (although not the best) standard; interprets the reference standard independent of screening test; and has a moderate sample size (50–100 subjects) and a "medium" spectrum of patients.

Poor
Has important limitations such as: uses inappropriate reference standard; administers the screening test improperly; ascertains the reference standard in a biased manner; and/or has a very small sample size of very narrow selected spectrum of patients.

RCT and Cohort Study Criteria

Definition of Ratings Based on the RCT and Cohort Study Criteria
Good
Meets all criteria: comparable groups are assembled initially and maintained throughout the study (follow-up: at least 80%); reliable and valid measurement instruments are used and applied equally to the groups; interventions are spelled out clearly; important outcomes are considered; and appropriate attention is given to confounders in analysis.

Fair
Studies will be graded as fair if any or all of the following problems occur, without the important limitations noted in the "poor" category below: generally comparable groups are assembled initially, but some question remains whether some (although not major) differences occurred in follow-up; measurement instruments are acceptable (although not the best) and generally applied equally; some but not all important outcomes are considered; and some but not all potential confounders are accounted for.

Poor
Studies will be graded as poor if any of the following major limitations exist: groups assembled initially are not close to being comparable or maintained throughout the study; unreliable or invalid measurement instruments are used or not applied at all equally among groups (including not masking outcome assessment); and key confounders are given little or no attention.


   ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
 
This study was conducted by the Oregon Evidence-Based Practice Center under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (Rockville, MD) contract 290-02-0024, Task Order 2.

We thank Andrew Hamilton, MLS, MS, for conducting the literature searches; expert reviewers for commenting on draft versions of this report; and members of the US Preventive Services Task Force who served as leads for this project, including Alfred Berg, MD, MPH, Paul Frame, MD, Leon Gordis, MD, DrPH, Jonathan Klein, MD, MPH, Virginia Moyer, MD, MPH, and Barbara Yawn, MD, MSc.


   FOOTNOTES
 
Accepted Aug 12, 2005.

Address correspondence to Heidi D. Nelson, MD, MPH, Oregon Health and Science University, Mail Code BICC 504, 3181 SW Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR 97239. E-mail: nelsonh{at}ohsu.edu

Financial Disclosure: Dr Panoscha has no direct personal financial benefit or conflict of interest involving this research, but there may be a perceived conflict. She is an officer of the Kennedy Fellows Association, which had sold and promoted the Clinical Adaptive Test/Clinical Linguistic Auditory Milestone Scale (CAT/CLAMS) test kit in the past. This test instrument is now published, produced, and sold by a private publishing company (Paul H. Brooks Publishing Co). Dr Panoscha excused herself for the portion of this evidence review that reviewed the abstracts and articles on the screening instruments.


   REFERENCES
TOP
 ABSTRACT
 METHODS
 RESULTS
 CONCLUSIONS
 APPENDIX: USPSTF QUALITY-RATING...
 REFERENCES
 

  1. Schuster MA. Developmental screening. In: McGlynn EA, ed. Quality of Care for Children and Adolescents: A Review of Selected Clinical Conditions and Quality Indicators. Santa Monica, CA: RAND;2000:157 –168
  2. Catts HW, Fey ME, Tomblin JB, Zhang X. A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2002;45 :1142 –1157[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  3. Scarborough HS, Dobrich W. Development of children with early language delay. J Speech Hear Res. 1990;33 :70 –83
  4. Richman N, Stevenson J, Graham PJ. Pre-school to school: a behavioural study. In: Schaffer R, ed. Behavioural Development: A Series of Monographs. London, United Kingdom: Academic;1982:228
  5. Silva PA, Williams SM, McGee R. A longitudinal study of children with developmental language delay at age three: later intelligence, reading and behaviour problems. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1987;29 :630 –640[ISI][Medline]
  6. Bishop D, Clarkson B. Written Language as a window into residual language deficits: a study of children with persistent and residual speech and language impairments. Cortex. 2003;39 :215 –237[ISI][Medline]
  7. Stern LM, Connell TM, Lee M, Greenwood G. The Adelaide preschool language unit: results of follow-up. J Paediatr Child Health. 1995;31 :207 –212[ISI][Medline]
  8. American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Ad Hoc Committee on Delivery in the Schools. Definitions of communication disorders and variations. ASHA.1993;35(suppl 10) :40 –41
  9. Law J, Boyle J, Harris F, Harkness A, Nye C. Screening for primary speech and language delay: a systematic review of the literature. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 1998;33(suppl) :21 –23
  10. Randall D, Reynell J, Curwen M. A study of language development in a sample of 3 year old children. Br J Disord Commun. 1974;9 :3 –16[ISI][Medline]
  11. Burden V, Stott CM, Forge J, Goodyer I. The Cambridge Language and Speech Project (CLASP): I. Detection of language difficulties at 36 to 39 months. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1996;38 :613 –631[ISI][Medline]
  12. Rescorla L, Hadicke-Wiley M, Escarce E. Epidemiological investigation of expressive language delay at age two. First Lang. 1993;13 :5 –22
  13. Silva PA, McGee R, Williams SM. Developmental language delay from three to seven years and its significance for low intelligence and reading difficulties at age seven. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1983;25 :783 –793[ISI][Medline]
  14. Stevenson J, Richman N. The prevelence of language delay in a population of three-year-old children and its association with general retardation. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1976;18 :431 –441[ISI][Medline]
  15. Wong V, Lee PWH, Mak-Lieh F, et al. Language screening in preschool Chinese children. Eur J Disord Commun. 1992;27 :247 –264[ISI][Medline]
  16. Roulstone S, Peters TJ, Glogowska M, Enderby P. A 12-month follow-up of preschool children investigating the natural history of speech and language delay. Child Care Health Dev. 2003;29 :245 –255[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  17. Bashir AS, Scavuzzo A. Children with language disorders: natural history and academic success. J Learn Disabil. 1992;25 :53 –65; discussion 66–70[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. 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 :635 –645[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  19. Felsenfeld S, Broen PA, McGue M. A 28-year follow-up of adults with a history of moderate phonological disorder: educational and occupational results. J Speech Hear Res. 1994;37 :1341 –1353
  20. Cohen NJ, Barwick MA, Horodezky N, Vallance DD, Im N. Language, achievement, and cognitive processing in psychiatrically disturbed children with previously identified and unsuspected language impairments. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1998;39 :865 –877
  21. Cohen NJ, Menna R, Vallance DD, Barwick MA, Im N, Horodezky N. Language, social cognitive processing, and behavioral characteristics of psychiatrically disturbed children with previously identified and unsuspected language impairments. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1998;39 :853 –864
  22. American Academy of Pediatrics. Guidelines for Health Supervision III. Elk Grove Village, IL: American Academy of Pediatrics;1997
  23. Ireton H, Glascoe FP. Assessing children's development using parents' reports: the Child Development Inventory. Clin Pediatr (Phila). 1995;34 :248 –255
  24. Bricker D, Squires J, Mounts L, et al. Ages and Stages Questionnaires: A Parent-Completed, Child-Monitoring System. 2nd ed: Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes;1999
  25. Capute AJ, Palmer FB, Shapiro BK, Wachtel RC, Schmidt S, Ross A. Clinical linguistic and auditory milestone scale: prediction of cognition in infancy. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1986;28 :762 –771[ISI][Medline]
  26. Frankenburg WK, Dodds J, Archer P, Shapiro H, Bresnick B. The Denver II: a major revision and restandardization of the Denver Developmental Screening Test. Pediatrics. 1992;89 :91 –97[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  27. Fenson L, Pethick SJ, Renda C, Cox JL, Dale PS, Reznick JS. Short-form versions of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories. Appl Psycholinguist. 2000;21 :95 –96[CrossRef]
  28. Coulter L, Gallagher C. Piloting new ways of working: evaluation of the WILSTAAR Programme. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2001;36(suppl) :270 –275
  29. Fluharty. The design and standardization of a speech and language screening test for use with preschool children. J Speech Hear Disord. 1973;39 :75 –88
  30. Coplan J, Gleason JR, Ryan R, Burke MG, Williams ML. Validation of an early language milestone scale in a high-risk population. Pediatrics. 1982;70 :677 –683[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  31. Halfon N, Olson L, Inkelas M, Lange L. Summary statistics from the National Survey of Early Childhood Health, 2000. National Center for Health Statistics. Vital Health Stat (PHS). 2002;15(4) :1 –34
  32. Harris RP, Helfand M, Woolf SH, et al. Current methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med. 2001;20(3 suppl) :21 –35
  33. Nelson HD, Nygren P, Walker M, Panoscha R. Screening for Speech and Language Delay in Preschool Children: Systematic Evidence Synthesis. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality;2005
  34. Law J, Boyle J, Harris F, Harkness A, Nye C. Screening for primary speech and language delay: a systematic review of the literature. Health Technol Assess. 1998;2 :1 –200
  35. Law J, Garrett Z, Nye C. Speech and language therapy interventions for children with primary speech and language delay or disorder. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2003(3) :CD004110
  36. Brookhouser PE, Hixson PK, Matkin ND. Early childhood language delay: the otolaryngologist's perspective. Laryngoscope. 1979;89 :1898 –1913[ISI][Medline]
  37. Campbell TF, Dollaghan CA, Rockette HE, et al. Risk factors for speech delay of unknown origin in 3-year-old children. Child Dev. 2003;74 :346 –357[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  38. Cantwell DP, Baker L. Psychiatric and learning disorders in children with speech and language disorders: a descriptive analysis. Adv Learn Behav Disabil. 1985;4 :29 –47
  39. Choudhury N, Benasich AA. A family aggregation study: the influence of family history and other risk factors on language development. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2003;46 :261 –272[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  40. Singer LT, Siegel AC, Lewis B, Hawkins S, Yamashita T, Baley J. Preschool language outcomes of children with history of bronchopulmonary dysplasia and very low birth weight. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 2001;22 :19 –26[ISI][Medline]
  41. Tallal P, Ross R, Curtiss S. Familial aggregation in specific language impairment. J Speech Hear Disord. 1989;54 :167 –173[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  42. Tomblin JB, Hardy JC, Hein HA. Predicting poor-communication status in preschool children using risk factors present at birth. J Speech Hear Res. 1991;34 :1096 –1105
  43. Tomblin J, Smith E, Zhang X. Epidemiology of specific language impairment: prenatal and perinatal risk factors. J Commun Disord. 1997;30 :325 –344; quiz 343–344[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  44. Whitehurst GJ, Arnold DS, Smith M, Fischel JE, Lonigan CJ, Valdez-Menchaca MC. Family history in developmental expressive language delay. J Speech Hear Res. 1991;34 :1150 –1157
  45. Fox A, Dodd B, Howard D. Risk factors for speech disorders in children. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2002;37 :117 –131[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  46. Klein PS, Tzuriel D. Preschoolers type of temperament as predictor of potential difficulties in cognitive functioning. Isr J Psychiatry Relat Sci. 1986;23 :49 –61[ISI][Medline]
  47. Kloth S, Janssen P, Kraaimaat F, Brutten G. Communicative behavior of mothers of stuttering and nonstuttering high-risk children prior to the onset of stuttering. J Fluency Disord. 1995;20 :365 –377[CrossRef]
  48. Lyytinen H, Ahonen T, Eklund K, et al. Developmental pathways of children with and without familial risk for dyslexia during the first years of life. Dev Neuropsychol. 2001;20 :535 –554[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  49. Peters SA, Grievink EH, van Bon WH, van den Bercken JH, Schilder AG. The contribution of risk factors to the effect of early otitis media with effusion on later language, reading, and spelling. Dev Med Child Neurol. 1997;39 :31 –39[ISI][Medline]
  50. Weindrich D, Jennen-Steinmetz C, Laucht M, Esser G, Schmidt MH. Epidemiology and prognosis of specific disorders of language and scholastic skills. Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2000;9 :186 –194[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  51. Yliherva A, Olsen P, Maki-Torkko E, Koiranen M, Jarvelin MR. Linguistic and motor abilities of low-birthweight children as assessed by parents and teachers at 8 years of age. Acta Paediatr. 2001;90 :1440 –1449[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  52. Sherman T, Shulman BB, Trimm RF, Hoff C. Plaster: predicting communication impairments in a NICU follow-up population. Pediatric Language Acquisition Screening Tool for Early Referral. Infant-Toddler Intervention: Transdisciplinary J. 1996;6 :183 –195
  53. Sturner RA, Heller JH, Funk SG, Layton TL. The Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test: a population-based validation study using sample-independent decision rules. J Speech Hear Res. 1993;36 :738 –745
  54. Dixon J, Kot A, Law J. Early language screening in City and Hackney: work in progress. Child Care Health Dev. 1988;14 :213 –229[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  55. Black MM, Gerson LF, Freeland CA, Nair P, Rubin JS, Hutcheson JJ. Language screening for infants prone to otitis media. J Pediatr Psychol. 1988;13 :423 –433[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  56. Glascoe FP. Can clinical judgment detect children with speech-language problems? Pediatrics. 1991;87 :317 –322[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  57. Glascoe FP, Byrne KE. The accuracy of three developmental screening tests. J Early Intervention. 1993;17 :368 –379
  58. Clark JG, Jorgensen SK, Blondeau R. Investigating the validity of the clinical linguistic auditory milestone scale. Int J Pediatr Otorhinolaryngol. 1995;31 :63 –75[CrossRef][ISI][Medline]
  59. Klee T, Carson DK, Gavin WJ, Hall L, Kent A, Reece S. Concurrent and predictive validity of an early language screening program. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 1998;41 :627 –641[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  60. Klee T, Pearce K, Carson DK. Improving the positive predictive value of screening for developmental language disorder. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2000;43 :821 –833[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  61. Rescorla L, Alley A. Validation of the language development survey (LDS): a parent report tool for identifying language delay in toddlers. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2001;44 :434 –445[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  62. Macias MM, Saylor CF, Greer MK, Charles JM, Bell N, Katikaneni LD. Infant screening: the usefulness of the Bayley Infant Neurodevelopmental Screener and the Clinical Adaptive Test/Clinical Linguistic Auditory Milestone Scale. J Dev Behav Pediatr. 1998;19 :155 –161[ISI][Medline]
  63. Laing GJ, Law J, Levin A, Logan S. Evaluation of a structured test and a parent led method for screening for speech and language problems: prospective population based study. BMJ. 2002;325 :1152 –1154[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  64. Levett L, Muir J. Which three year olds need speech therapy? Uses of the Levett-Muir language screening test. Health Visitor. 1983;56 :454 –456[Medline]
  65. Blaxley L, Clinker M, Warr-Leeper