Cited by 114Language Development and DisordersDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyHearing Loss and Rehabilitation

Improving the Positive Predictive Value of Screening for Developmental Language Disorder

Open access
Klee, Thomas, Pearce, Kim, Carson, David K.·2000·Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research

Abstract

In a previous study, we reported the results of an early language screening program in which 306 children were screened using a parent-report questionnaire sent through the mail (Klee et al., 1998). A sample of the children screened were given clinical evaluations within a month of screening (n=64) and again 1 year later (n=36). Although the screening program correctly identified 91% of 2-year-olds with language delay, it produced a large number of over-referrals. In the present study we examine a revised screening criterion designed to reduce the number of false positives. The revised criterion generated fewer positive screens overall than the original and resulted in improved specificity (96% vs. 87%) and positive predictive value (77% vs. 51%), while maintaining the high sensitivity (91%) and negative predictive value (98%) of the original criterion. We also propose a screening score based on the new criterion, designed to inform the process of deciding which children to bring in for further evaluation.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/jslhr.4304.821

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

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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%).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Klee, T., Pearce, K., & Carson, D. K.
Affiliations
  • Newcastle University (GB)
  • University of Wyoming (US)
Venue
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Published
2000-08
Volume
43
Issue
4
Pages
821-833
ISSN
  • 1092-4388 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9102
OpenAlex
W2089716454
Cited by
114
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 6
FWCI
4.19
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • The HKU Scholars Hub (University of Hong Kong) (submittedVersion)
  • Newcastle University ePrints (Newcastle Univesity)
Funders
Nuffield Foundation
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Keywords
specific language impairment, language screening, positive predictive value, screening criteria, false positives, over-referral, specificity, sensitivity, parent questionnaires, screening score, two-year-old children
MeSH terms
Child, Preschool, Double-Blind Method, Female, Humans, Language Development Disorders, Language Tests, Male, Mass Screening, Otitis Media, Parents, Predictive Value of Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, 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