CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 128Language Development and DisordersReading and Literacy DevelopmentVoice and Speech Disorders

Who shall be called language disordered? Some reflections and one perspective

Lahey, Margaret·1990·Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders
DOI 10.1044/jshd.5504.612
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper discusses some issues involved in identifying children who have language problems. The perspective taken is that (a) the goal of identification must be clearly distinguished from other goals of assessment; (b) identification of children with language disorders is better based on language performance than on inferences about the language knowledge that underlies this performance; (c) language performance must be sampled in more than one context, including, for purposes of identification, contexts that stress the language system; (d) the standards of expectations for comparing performance and determining differences must be explicit; (e) standards used to determine differences are better based on the performance of chronological-age peers than on the performance of children with similar mental abilities; and (f) children who do not evidence poor language performance but are considered at risk for language-related problems should be distinguished from children who demonstrate poor language skills.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/jshd.5504.612

Cites

42 of 42 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 [56]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Lahey, M.
Affiliations
Emerson College (US)
Corresponding author
Lahey, Margaret
Venue
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders
Publisher
American Speech Language Hearing Association
Published
1990-11
Volume
55
Issue
4
Pages
612-620
ISSN
  • 0022-4677 (ISSN-L)
  • 2163-6184
DOI
10.1044/jshd.5504.612
OpenAlex
W1965033403
Cited by
128
References
42
Citations by year
2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 2
FWCI
10.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
Keywords
language assessment, language performance, linguistic knowledge, peer comparison, vulnerable children, language disorders in children
MeSH terms
Child, Humans, Intelligence, Language Development, Language Disorders, Language Tests

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