Concurrent validity of the Fluharty preschool speech and language screening test–second edition at age 3: Comparison with four diagnostic measures
Open accessAbstract
Purpose: The aim of this study was to examine the concurrent validity of the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test–Second Edition (Fluharty-2; Fluharty, 2001 ) for mass screenings of language at age 3 years. Method: Participants were sixty-two 3-year-old children, 31 who had failed and 31 who had passed the Fluharty-2. Performance on the screening was compared to 4 diagnostic measures: Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test–Preschool, Second Edition; mean length of utterance in morphemes (MLU m ), finite verb morphology composite, and Index of Productive Syntax (IPSyn). Results: Children who failed the Fluharty-2 scored significantly lower on each of the diagnostic measures than children who passed the Fluharty-2, but the effect size for MLU m was small. Scores on the Fluharty-2 were significantly correlated with scores on the diagnostic measures. There was significant agreement for pass/fail decisions between the Fluharty-2 and diagnostic measures only for IPSyn. However, even for the IPSyn, the agreement rate for passing was only moderate (80%) and the agreement rate for failing was only fair (68%). Conclusion: The Fluharty-2 showed limited agreement for pass/fail decisions with all 4 of the diagnostic measures. There was reason to question the validity of 2 of the diagnostic measures—Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test–Preschool, Second Edition and MLU m —for diagnosing language impairment in 3-year-old children. However, there were no such concerns about finite verb morphology composite or IPSyn to account for the limited agreement. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Fluharty-2 would refer both too few at-risk children and too many nonrisk children for a follow-up assessment, making it an inefficient tool for mass screenings of language.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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 Fluharty-2 test included 3-year-old children, but the findings did not confirm its accuracy for this age range.
“The study [98] concerning the Fluharty-2 test included 3-year-old children but the findings did not confirm its accuracy for this age range.”
From Developmental Language Disorder: Early Predictors, Age for the Diagnosis, and Diagnostic Tools. A Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [98]
The Fluharty-2 would refer too few children at risk and too many non-at-risk children for a follow-up assessment, making it an inefficient tool for mass screenings of language at 3 years of age.
“The authors concluded that the Fluharty-2 would refer too few children at risk and too many non-at-risk children for a follow-up assessment, making it an inefficient tool for mass screenings of language at 3 years of age.”
From Developmental Language Disorder: Early Predictors, Age for the Diagnosis, and Diagnostic Tools. A Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [98]
Children who failed the Fluharty-2 scored significantly lower on each of the diagnostic measures (SPELT-P2, MLUm, finite verb morphology composite, IPSyn) than children who passed the Fluharty-2, but the effect size for MLUm was small.
“Children who failed the Fluharty-2 scored significantly lower on each of the diagnostic measures than children who passed the Fluharty-2, but the effect size for MLUm was small.”
From Developmental Language Disorder: Early Predictors, Age for the Diagnosis, and Diagnostic Tools. A Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [98]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences
Muller, K. E., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Technometrics · doi:10.2307/1270020 · Cited by 99,600 · see citing works
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148 · see citing works
Cohen, J. (1992) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037//0033-2909.112.1.155 · Cited by 8,771 · see citing works
The Relation between Age and Mean Length of Utterance in Morphemes
Miller, J. F., & Chapman, R. S. (1981) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/jshr.2402.154 · Cited by 518 · see citing works
Scarborough, H. S. (1990) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716400008262 · Cited by 517 · see citing works
Language Disorders from Infancy Through Adolescence
(2018) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2015-0-04093-x · Cited by 385 · see citing works
Rice, M. L., Šmolík, F., Perpich, D., Thompson, T. I., Rytting, N., & Blossom, M. (2010) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0183 · Cited by 333 · see citing works
Screening for speech and language delay: a systematic review of the literature.
Law, Boyle, Harris, S. R., Harkness, & Nye (1998) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta2090 · Cited by 318 · see citing works
Handbook of Child Language Disorders
Schwartz, R. G. (2010) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9780203837764 · Cited by 311 · see citing works
Specific Language Impairment and Grammatical Morphology
Bedore, L. M., & Leonard, L. B. (1998) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/jslhr.4105.1185 · Cited by 297 · see citing works
A Procedure for Phonetic Transcription by Consensus
Shriberg, L. D., Kwiatkowski, J., & Hoffmann, K. (1984) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/jshr.2703.456 · Cited by 266 · see citing works
The fifteenth mental measurements yearbook
Plake, B. S., Impara, J. C., Spies, R. A., & Murphy, L. L. (2003) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 174 · see citing works
Development of the use of word order in comprehension
de Villiers, J. G., & de Villiers, P. A. (1973) · Journal of Psycholinguistic Research · doi:10.1007/bf01067055 · Cited by 160 · see citing works
Black, L. I., Vahratian, A. M., & Hoffman, H. J. (2015) · PubMed · Cited by 158 · see citing works
The Use of MLU for Identifying Language Impairment in Preschool Children
Eisenberg, S. L., Fersko, T. M., & Lundgren, C. (2001) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2001/028 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Self-citationThe composition of normative groups and diagnostic decision making: shooting ourselves in the foot.
Peña, E. D., Spaulding, T. J., & Plante, E. (2006) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2006/023 · Cited by 141 · see citing works
Late-talking toddlers: MLU and IPSyn outcomes at 3;0 and 4;0
Rescorla, L. A., Dahlsgaard, K. K., & Roberts, J. (2000) · Journal of Child Language · doi:10.1017/s0305000900004232 · Cited by 135 · see citing works
The eighteenth mental measurements yearbook
Robert, A., Janet, F. C., Geisinger, K. F., & Murphy, L. L. (2010) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 112 · see citing works
A Comparison of the Age-MLU Relation in Normal and Specifically Language-Impaired Preschool Children
Klee, T. M., Schaffer, M., May, S., Membrino, I., & Mougey, K. (1989) · Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders · doi:10.1044/jshd.5402.226 · Cited by 94 · see citing works
Seeff‐Gabriel, B., Chiat, S., & Dodd, B. J. (2010) · International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · doi:10.3109/13682820903509432 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
The Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test
STURNER, R. A., Heller, J. H., Funk, S. G., & Layton, T. L. (1993) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/jshr.3604.738 · Cited by 85 · see citing works
Assessment of Language Disorders in Children
McCauley, R. J. (2013) · Psychology Press eBooks · doi:10.4324/9781410605719 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Diagnostic Accuracy of Two Tests of Preschool Language
Plante, E., & Vance, R. (1995) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0402.70 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Pawłowska, M. (2014) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/2014_jslhr-l-13-0189 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Norm-Referenced Test Interpretation in the Diagnostic Process
Merrell, A. W., & Plante, E. (1997) · Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools · doi:10.1044/0161-1461.2801.50 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
A Reconsideration of the Relation between Age and Mean Utterance Length
Scarborough, H. S., Wyckoff, J., & Davidson, R. (1986) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/jshr.2903.394 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Guo, L.-Y., & Eisenberg, S. (2015) · Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools · doi:10.1044/2015_lshss-14-0052 · Cited by 51 · see citing works
Self-citationThe Diagnostic Accuracy of Two Tense Measures for Identifying 3-Year-Olds With Language Impairment
Guo, L.-Y., & Eisenberg, S. L. (2014) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/2013_ajslp-13-0007 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
Self-citationYoung Children's Structure Production: A Revision of the Index of Productive Syntax
Altenberg, E. P., Roberts, J. A., & Scarborough, H. S. (2018) · Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools · doi:10.1044/2018_lshss-17-0092 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
The relationship between age and MLU in young children: a second look at Klee and Fitzgerald's data
Conant, S. (1987) · Journal of Child Language · doi:10.1017/s0305000900012794 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Guo, L.-Y., & Eisenberg, S. L. (2016) · Seminars in Speech and Language · doi:10.1055/s-0036-1580740 · Cited by 22 · see citing works
Self-citationTwo Language Screening Tests Compared with Developmental Sentence Scoring
Blaxley, L., Clinker, M., & Warr-Leeper, G. A. (1983) · Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools · doi:10.1044/0161-1461.1401.38 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
A Strategy for Language Assessment of Young Children
Kelly, D. J., & Rice, M. L. (1986) · Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools · doi:10.1044/0161-1461.1702.83 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
Spaulding (2006) · doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2006/007
Greenslade (2009) · doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2008/07-0049
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 36 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 15
- Blosser J. (2012). School programs in speech-language pathology. San Diego, CA: Plural. [Google Scholar]
- Carrow-Woolfolk E. (1999). Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL). Circle Pines, MN: AGS. [Google Scholar]
- Fluharty N. (1978). Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test. New York, NY: Teaching Resources. [Google Scholar]
- Fluharty N. (2001). Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test–Second Edition (Fluharty-2). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. [Google Scholar]
- Goldstein P. A. (1994). A comparison of language screening procedures in the identification of children with language delays in prekindergarten classes. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses. (Order No. 9501606). [Google Scholar]
- Kamphaus R. W., & Reynolds C. R. (2003). Reynold's Intellectual Screening Test (RIST). Lutz, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources. [Google Scholar]
- Klee T., Schaffer M., May S., Membrino I., & Mougey K. (1989b). Predictive value of MLU in normal and language impaired preschool children. Unpublished manuscript. [DOI] [PubMed]
- Lee L. L. (1974). Developmental sentence analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press. [Google Scholar]
- Loeb D. F., Kinsler K., & Bookbinder L. (2000). Current language sampling practices in preschools. Poster presented at the convention of the American Speech and Hearing Association, Washington, DC. [Google Scholar]
- McCauley R. J. (2003). Review of the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test–Second Edition. In The fifteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 395–397). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute. [Google Scholar]
- Miller J. F., & Iglesias A. (2003–2007). Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT, Version 9) [Computer software]. Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Waisman Center, Language Analysis Laboratory. [Google Scholar]
- Newcomer P., & Hammill D. (1997). Test of Language Development–Primary: Third Edition (TOLD-P:3). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. [Google Scholar]
- Semel E., Wiig E., & Secord W. (2004). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–Preschool: Second Edition (CELF-P: 2). Austin, TX: Pearson. [Google Scholar]
- Shipley K., Stone T., & Sue M. (1983). Test for Examining Expressive Morphology (TEEM). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. [Google Scholar]
- Towne R. L. (2010). Review of the Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test–Preschool 2. In Spies R. A., Carlson J. F., & Geisinger K. F. (Eds.), The eighteenth mental measurements yearbook (pp. 598–600). Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute. [Google Scholar]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Sansavini, A., Favilla, M. E., Guasti, M. T., Marini, A., Millepiedi, S., Di Martino, M. V., Vecchi, S., Battajon, N., Bertolo, L., Capirci, O., et al. (2021) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci11050654 · Cited by 207 · see citing works
Moland, C. W., & Oetting, J. B. (2021) · American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology · doi:10.1044/2021_ajslp-20-00270 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
Measuring productive syntactic abilities in Mandarin-speaking children in Taiwan
Cheung, H., Lin, C.-H., & Chang, C.-J. (2024) · Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics · doi:10.1080/02699206.2024.2302549 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Language Screening: How Far Have We Come?
Longerbeam, M., & Freeman, L. M. (2020) · Current Developmental Disorders Reports · doi:10.1007/s40474-020-00198-7
Assessment of English learner students
Abedi, J., & Sánchez, C. (2022) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-818630-5.07074-3
- Authors
- Eisenberg, S., Victorino, K., & Murray, S.
- Affiliations
- Montclair State University (US)
- William Paterson University (US)
- SUNY Erie (US)
- Corresponding author
- Eisenberg, Sarita
- ORCID
- Victorino, Kristen
- Venue
- Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools
- Published
- 2019-10-10
- Volume
- 50
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 673-682
- ISSN
- 0161-1461 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-9129
- PMC
- PMC7210429
- OpenAlex
- W2967895203
- Cited by
- 5
- References
- 36
- Citations by year
- 2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 1
- FWCI
- 1.82
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
- National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R21DC009218)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
- Keywords
- concurrent validity, three-year-old children, screening efficiency
- MeSH terms
- Child Language, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Language, Language Disorders, Language Tests, Language Therapy, Male, Schools, Speech, Speech-Language Pathology, Speech Therapy, Reproducibility of Results
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
