CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 135Language Development and DisordersDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyReading and Literacy Development

Clinical and research congruence in identifying children with Specific Language Impairment

Aram, Dorothy M., Morris, Robin, Hall, Nancy E.·1993·Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
DOI 10.1044/jshr.3603.580
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This paper reports on the results of a large multicenter project designed to develop an empirically based classification of preschool children with language impairments. A clinically selected population of 252 children with specific language impairments (SLI) was used to evaluate the reliability, coverage, and usefulness of both standard clinical and research definitions of such children. Varying degrees of congruence were found between the clinically identified children with SLI and those identified as SLI using discrepancy, deficit, and standardized operational criteria. Such mismatch between the original clinical identification and more standardized operational criteria may be related to different clinical perspectives, professional training, and limited assessment measures. These results suggest that there is a significant gulf between the clinical diagnosis of children with specific language impairment and more standardized operational criteria. It is suggested that the global concept of a “specific language impairment” may not be a useful concept for either clinical or research activities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/jshr.3603.580

Cites

52 of 52 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 [53]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Aram, D. M., Morris, R., & Hall, N. E.
Affiliations
  • Emerson College Boston, MA
  • Georgia State University (US)
  • Case Western Reserve University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Publisher
American Speech Language Hearing Association
Published
1993-06
Volume
36
Issue
3
Pages
580-591
ISSN
  • 1092-4388 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9102
DOI
10.1044/jshr.3603.580
OpenAlex
W2064883693
Cited by
135
References
52
Citations by year
2025: 1 · 2024: 1 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 2 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 5
FWCI
8.81
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NS20489)
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, preschool children, diagnosis, research definition, classification criteria, diagnostic validity, language assessment
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Child Language, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Intelligence, Intelligence Tests, Language Disorders, Language Tests, Male, Psychometrics, Speech-Language Pathology, Verbal Behavior, 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