A Review of Screeners to Identify Risk of Developmental Language Disorder.

IF 4.6 Q2 MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS
ACS Applied Bio Materials Pub Date : 2024-05-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-07 DOI:10.1044/2023_AJSLP-23-00286
Xue Bao, Rouzana Komesidou, Tiffany P Hogan
{"title":"A Review of Screeners to Identify Risk of Developmental Language Disorder.","authors":"Xue Bao, Rouzana Komesidou, Tiffany P Hogan","doi":"10.1044/2023_AJSLP-23-00286","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":2,"journal":{"name":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":4.6000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"ACS Applied Bio Materials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-23-00286","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/7 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"MATERIALS SCIENCE, BIOMATERIALS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

识别发育性语言障碍风险的筛查方法综述。
目的:本综述旨在全面总结、比较和评估用于识别发育性语言障碍(DLD)风险的筛查工具。筛查 DLD 是识别需要进一步评估的儿童的一种具有成本效益的方法,反过来还能提供急需的支持:方法:我们在北美发现了 15 种商用英语 DLD 筛查器。然后,我们从三个领域的 27 个方面对每种筛查工具进行了描述,包括:(a) 易用性信息(缩写、子测试、网站、成本、包含的材料、出版年份、考官资格、年龄范围、施测时间和施测格式);(b) 可用性特征(方言兼容性、进度监测功能、可操作的后续指导、小组评估能力和在线施测的可用性);(c) 易用性特征(可操作的后续指导、小组评估能力和在线施测的可用性)、(c) 技术标准(是否有技术手册、概念定义、计算分类准确性时使用的样本量、样本分布、样本收集年份、结果测量、样本基础率、临界值、灵敏度、特异性、阳性预测值和阴性预测值)。结果我们从 15 位筛查员中的 14 位(93%)获得了足够的可及性信息。相比之下,没有一个筛选者(0%)包含全面的可用性特征。10 个筛选器(67%)包含了一定范围的分类准确性(灵敏度为 70%-100% ,特异度为 68%-90% )。我们提供了每种筛查器的优势和劣势领域,供用户快速参考,并针对五种实际情况提出了筛查器建议:我们的研究结果介绍了一些符合大多数标准的 DLD 筛查工具,并强调了许多需要改进的地方,包括提高分类的准确性和明确对被确定有 DLD 风险的儿童的后续指导。DLD 筛查对于提供及时的早期识别、干预和课堂支持至关重要,而早期识别、干预和课堂支持反过来又会促进学生成绩的提高。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
ACS Applied Bio Materials
ACS Applied Bio Materials Chemistry-Chemistry (all)
CiteScore
9.40
自引率
2.10%
发文量
464
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信