CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 25Language Development and DisordersDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyReading and Literacy Development

Examination of the stability of two methods of defining Specific Language Impairment

Cole, Kevin N., Schwartz, Ilene S., Notari, Angela R., Dale, Philip S., Mills, Paulette E.·1995·Applied Psycholinguistics
DOI 10.1017/s0142716400006445
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Two commonly applied methods of differentially classifying language-delayed children as either specifically language impaired or developmental lag language impaired (i.e., children with low IQ and low language performance) were examined for stability over 1-and 2-year periods. One classification method, following the DSM III.R guidelines, was based on an absolute cut-off level for performance on a measure of cognitive ability, in conjunction with other exclusionary criteria (i.e., language delay that is not the result of hearing loss, social– emotional disorder, etc.). The second classification method included the same absolute cut-off for cognitive ability as the DSM III-R guidelines, but it also required that a minimum relative difference be present between the general cognitive performance and the language performance. These two methods were examined for differences in classification of children, as well as for stability of classification across time. We used the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities Perceptual-Performance Index as the cognitive measure and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised and the Test of Early Language Development as language performance measures. Results indicated significant differences in classification between the two methods of defining SLI, as well as substantial changes in classification over time using either method. Alternative classification systems are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/s0142716400006445

Cites

45 of 45 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The possibility of diagnostic bias is enhanced by ambiguity in the cut-offs used for diagnosis: 1 SD, 1.25 SDs, 1.5 SDs, or 2 SDs below the expected mean.

    “The possibility of diagnostic bias is further enhanced by another ambiguity in the available literature that concerns different cut-offs used for the diagnosis: 1 standard deviation (SD), 1.25 SDs, 1.5 SDs, or 2 SDs below the expected mean [53,54,55,56,57,58].”

    From Developmental Language Disorder: Early Predictors, Age for the Diagnosis, and Diagnostic Tools. A Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [55]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 46 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Cole, K. N., Schwartz, I. S., Notari, A. R., Dale, P. S., & Mills, P. E.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
Corresponding author
Cole, Kevin N.
ORCID
Venue
Applied Psycholinguistics
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
1995-01
Volume
16
Issue
1
Pages
103-124
ISSN
  • 0142-7164 (ISSN-L)
  • 1469-1817
DOI
10.1017/s0142716400006445
OpenAlex
W2023352076
Cited by
25
References
46
Citations by year
2021: 4 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2
FWCI
2.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified, 5080 d)
Locations
Applied Psycholinguistics (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
specific language impairment, DSM-III-R criteria, McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities, Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised, low IQ

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review