当前双语儿童语言发育障碍评估方法的诊断准确性

IF 0.3 Q4 LINGUISTICS
Xueao Cao, Ruixia Yan
{"title":"当前双语儿童语言发育障碍评估方法的诊断准确性","authors":"Xueao Cao, Ruixia Yan","doi":"10.1558/jircd.26978","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Speech-language pathologists are facing challenges in assessing bilingual children with developmental language disorder (DLD). The study aimed to systematically review the literature for the past five years and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of current assessment measures in the identification of DLD in bilingual children.\nMethod: Through a keyword search from four electronic databases and a manual search of reference lists, eligible studies were identified and evaluated with respect to quality of evidence, study characteristics, and reported diagnostic accuracy.\nResults: The assessment measures used in the studies varied widely in format, emphasis, and origin. Most studies lacked clear descriptions of controls for potential biases, making it difficult to rate specific quality indicators and decreasing the overall quality of evidence. Diagnostic accuracy of assessment measures across studies ranged from poor to good. Mixed measures showed a higher percentage of good diagnostic accuracy compared to linguistic and nonlinguistic ones.\nDiscussion/conclusions: Evidence supports the previous findings regarding the difficulties in developing appropriate assessment tools and advocacy for using converging evidence in assessment. Limitations in methodology discussed in the past literature still exist, which may result in inflated diagnostic accuracy and decreased validity.","PeriodicalId":52222,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Diagnostic accuracy of current assessment measures for developmental language disorders in bilingual children\",\"authors\":\"Xueao Cao, Ruixia Yan\",\"doi\":\"10.1558/jircd.26978\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Background: Speech-language pathologists are facing challenges in assessing bilingual children with developmental language disorder (DLD). The study aimed to systematically review the literature for the past five years and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of current assessment measures in the identification of DLD in bilingual children.\\nMethod: Through a keyword search from four electronic databases and a manual search of reference lists, eligible studies were identified and evaluated with respect to quality of evidence, study characteristics, and reported diagnostic accuracy.\\nResults: The assessment measures used in the studies varied widely in format, emphasis, and origin. Most studies lacked clear descriptions of controls for potential biases, making it difficult to rate specific quality indicators and decreasing the overall quality of evidence. Diagnostic accuracy of assessment measures across studies ranged from poor to good. Mixed measures showed a higher percentage of good diagnostic accuracy compared to linguistic and nonlinguistic ones.\\nDiscussion/conclusions: Evidence supports the previous findings regarding the difficulties in developing appropriate assessment tools and advocacy for using converging evidence in assessment. Limitations in methodology discussed in the past literature still exist, which may result in inflated diagnostic accuracy and decreased validity.\",\"PeriodicalId\":52222,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-01-31\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.26978\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"LINGUISTICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1558/jircd.26978","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"LINGUISTICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:言语病理学家在评估患有语言发育障碍(DLD)的双语儿童时面临着挑战。本研究旨在系统回顾过去五年的文献,评估当前评估方法在识别双语儿童发育性语言障碍方面的诊断准确性:方法:通过对四个电子数据库的关键词检索和对参考文献列表的人工检索,确定了符合条件的研究,并就证据质量、研究特点和报告的诊断准确性进行了评估:研究中使用的评估方法在格式、重点和来源方面差异很大。大多数研究缺乏对潜在偏差控制的清晰描述,因此很难对具体的质量指标进行评分,并降低了证据的整体质量。各项研究中评估措施的诊断准确性从差到好不等。与语言和非语言评估方法相比,混合评估方法的诊断准确率较高:有证据支持以前的研究结果,即在开发适当的评估工具和倡导在评估中使用融合证据方面存在困难。过去文献中讨论的方法论的局限性仍然存在,这可能会导致诊断准确性的提高和有效性的降低。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Diagnostic accuracy of current assessment measures for developmental language disorders in bilingual children
Background: Speech-language pathologists are facing challenges in assessing bilingual children with developmental language disorder (DLD). The study aimed to systematically review the literature for the past five years and evaluate the diagnostic accuracy of current assessment measures in the identification of DLD in bilingual children. Method: Through a keyword search from four electronic databases and a manual search of reference lists, eligible studies were identified and evaluated with respect to quality of evidence, study characteristics, and reported diagnostic accuracy. Results: The assessment measures used in the studies varied widely in format, emphasis, and origin. Most studies lacked clear descriptions of controls for potential biases, making it difficult to rate specific quality indicators and decreasing the overall quality of evidence. Diagnostic accuracy of assessment measures across studies ranged from poor to good. Mixed measures showed a higher percentage of good diagnostic accuracy compared to linguistic and nonlinguistic ones. Discussion/conclusions: Evidence supports the previous findings regarding the difficulties in developing appropriate assessment tools and advocacy for using converging evidence in assessment. Limitations in methodology discussed in the past literature still exist, which may result in inflated diagnostic accuracy and decreased validity.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders
Journal of Interactional Research in Communication Disorders Social Sciences-Linguistics and Language
CiteScore
0.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
3
×
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