CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 110Language Development and DisordersHearing Impairment and CommunicationDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Concurrent and predictive validity of an early language screening program

Klee, Thomas, Carson, David K., Gavin, William J., Hall, Lisa, Kent, Amy, Reece, Shaily·1998·Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
DOI 10.1044/jslhr.4103.627
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The efficacy of screening 2-year-old children for language delay using a parent-report questionnaire was investigated in three studies. The Language Development Survey (Rescorla, 1989) was mailed to 650 families at the time of their child's second birthday. Fifty-three percent of the surveys received by parents were completed and returned. Screening outcomes were then compared, in double-blind fashion, with the results of comprehensive clinical evaluations at ages 2 (N= 64) and 3 (N= 36). Parents' report of the size of their children's expressive vocabularies was highly correlated with clinical language measures at age 2. Children who screened positive performed significantly poorer than children who screened negative on standardized language tests and on measures taken from spontaneous conversation. The screening program demonstrated excellent sensitivity and specificity for identifying language delay at age 2 but somewhat lower levels for predicting developmental status one year later.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/jslhr.4103.627

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 Language Development Survey (LDS) administered at age 2 years had the best predictive value with regard to language development (sensitivity 67%, specificity 94%, NPV 88%, PPV 80%).

    “The screening tool with the best predictive value with regard to language development was the Language Development Survey (LDS [106,107,108,109]) administered at age 2 years (sensitivity 67%, specificity 94%, Negative Predictive Value NPV 88% and PPV 80%).”

    From Developmental Language Disorder: Early Predictors, Age for the Diagnosis, and Diagnostic Tools. A Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [107]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Klee, T., Carson, D. K., Gavin, W. J., Hall, L., Kent, A., & Reece, S.
Affiliations
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • University of Wyoming (US)
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
ORCID
Klee, Thomas
Venue
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Publisher
American Speech Language Hearing Association
Published
1998-06
Volume
41
Issue
3
Pages
627-641
ISSN
  • 1092-4388 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9102
DOI
10.1044/jslhr.4103.627
OpenAlex
W1970392191
Cited by
110
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 5
FWCI
6.44
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Wyoming
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
early childhood language development, two-year-old children, parent questionnaires, expressive vocabulary, sensitivity and specificity, predictive validity, concurrent validity, developmental outcome prediction, spontaneous conversation
MeSH terms
Age Factors, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Infant, Language Disorders, Language Tests, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Time Factors, Program Evaluation

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