Cited by 166Language Development and DisordersDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyChild and Animal Learning Development

Early identification of language delay by direct language assessment or parent report?

Sachse, Steffi, Suchodoletz, Waldemar Von·2008·Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: The goal of the study was to compare the accuracy and diagnostic power of a parent report measure and direct language assessment for early identification of children with language delay. METHOD: The parent language report and direct language measures were compared for 47 typically developing toddlers and 70 late-talking toddlers aged 24 to 26 months. One year later, language abilities of 102 of the 117 children were reassessed. RESULTS: The concurrent validity of the parent report was high both for judging language skills and for identifying language delay. No evidence was found of differences in the rating accuracy of mothers with different educational levels. Language abilities 1 year later were predicted better with direct language measurement than with the parent report. However, there were no differences between the accuracy of the parent report and individual language assessment concerning the prediction of language delay at age 3. CONCLUSION: The results suggest that the parent language report is a valid and efficient tool for assessing productive language abilities and judging expressive language delay in 2-year-old toddlers. The measurement characteristics of the parent report are comparable with those of direct language measures.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1097/dbp.0b013e318146902a

Cites

38 of 38 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sachse, S., & Suchodoletz, W. V.
Affiliations
Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München (DE)
Corresponding author
Suchodoletz, Waldemar Von
Venue
Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics
Published
2008-02
Volume
29
Issue
1
Pages
34-41
ISSN
0196-206X (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2058531967
Cited by
166
References
38
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 13 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 6 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
10.53
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Developmental & Behavioral Pediatrics (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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 › Child and Animal Learning Development
Keywords
language delay, early detection, parent report, late talkers, toddlers, concurrent validity, predictive validity, expressive language, language development
MeSH terms
Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Language Development Disorders, Language Tests, Male, Parents, Predictive Value of Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Severity of Illness Index, Observer Variation, Prevalence, Early Diagnosis

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