Screening for speech and language disorders: The reliability, validity and accuracy of the General Language Screen
Abstract
This paper reports the reliability, validity and accuracy of the General Language Screen (GLS) as the first stage in its development as a potential screening instrument for the identification of speech and language disorder (SLD) in the primary care setting. Data reported were obtained during the Cambridge Language and Speech Project (CLASP) a longitudinal epidemiological study of primary SLD. The GLS was originally used in initial CLASP sample ascertainment when children were aged 36 months. This report utilises speech and language data collected at subsequent stages of this study (37‐months, 45‐months and 8‐years) to determine the reliability, validity and accuracy of the GLS. The GLS demonstrated sufficient levels of reliability (internal consistency f =0.74) and validity (criterion validity r =−0.55). Adequate construct validity was demonstrated by a factor analysis in which two language related factors were identified. These data therefore justified exploration of the accuracy of the GLS as a screening instrument. Analysis of accuracy in this context is complicated by lack of a generally accepted method of defining SLD case status. This report utilises data on language function at different stages of development to provide measures of GLS accuracy over time. Concurrent accuracy, measured against parental report of language function at 37‐months, was good (ROC area under the curve=0.93). Predictive accuracy measured against direct assessment of speech and language at 45‐months and 8‐years was, as expected, somewhat less (ROC=0.77 and 0.68 respectively). The implications for the use of the GLS as a screening instrument are discussed. The data indicate that the GLS would function most usefully as the first stage of a two‐stage screen for SLD in the primary care setting. Recommendations are made as to the nature of the second stage of such a screen and plans for future research are outlined.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Mixed results were found for the SDQ, DDST, and GLS, with sensitivity values of 31%, 44%, and 67.4%, and PPV values of 31%, 41%, and 31.5%, respectively, which were unsatisfactory.
“Mixed results were found also for the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) [118], the Denver Developmental Screening Test (DDST) [119,120], and the General Language Screen (GLS) [121] for which both sensitivity values (31%, 44%, and 67.4%, respectively) and PPV values (31%, 41%, and 31.5%, respectively) were particularly unsatisfactory”
From Developmental Language Disorder: Early Predictors, Age for the Diagnosis, and Diagnostic Tools. A Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [121]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 12 · Cited by 42
- Authors
- Stott, C. M., Merricks, M. J., Bolton, P. F., & Goodyer, I. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Cambridge (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Stott, Carol M.
- Venue
- International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2002-04-06
- Volume
- 37
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 133-151
- ISSN
- 1368-2822 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-6984
- OpenAlex
- W2103679360
- Cited by
- 42
- References
- 12
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 1
- FWCI
- 2.64
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust
- Isaac Newton Trust
- Medical Research Council
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
- Keywords
- speech and language disorders, screening tool, primary care, reliability statistics, validity, prediction accuracy, two-stage screening, language development, children
- MeSH terms
- Child, Child, Preschool, Humans, Language Disorders, Language Tests, Mass Screening, Predictive Value of Tests, Sensitivity and Specificity, Speech Disorders
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