CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 6Language Development and DisordersDevelopmental and Educational NeuropsychologyHearing Loss and Rehabilitation

Evaluating the GAPS test as a screener for language impairment in young children

Nash, Hannah, Leavett, Ruth, Childs, Helen·2011·International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
DOI 10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00038.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Background: The early identification of children is one of five themes identified by the Bercow review of 2008. The review also notes that there is a wide range in the methods used to identify children and it goes on to recommend that there needs to be a more systematic approach. One such approach would be to screen children before, or shortly after, school entry. The GAPS test has been designed as a screening tool to identify young children with language impairment and is reported to be of value in identifying children with language difficulties. However, the test has previously only been evaluated by its authors and the sensitivity of the test for identifying children from an unselected sample has not been evaluated. Aims: This study evaluated the ability of the GAPS test to identify language‐impaired children in an unselected sample. In addition, the effect of tester status (a trained researcher and a teaching assistant) was investigated. Methods & Procedures: A total of 106 children aged 3–6 years completed the GAPS test, the Early Repetition Battery (ERB) and the core language scales from the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—Preschool 2 with a trained researcher. Half the children completed the GAPS test a second time with a teaching assistant. Outcomes & Results: There was a significant effect of tester only for the non‐word repetition subtest of the GAPS test in the nursery age group; the teaching assistants awarded higher scores than trained researchers. Of the 106 children, ten were language impaired according to the CELF‐Preschool 2 core language score. The GAPS test identified two of these children at the 10th percentile cut‐off, resulting in a low sensitivity estimate of 20%. However, the GAPS test only identified four of the 96 remaining unimpaired children resulting in a high specificity value of 96%. These values were similar when the 15th percentile cut‐off was used and when parental concern or a family history of reading difficulties were used as the criterion measure. Conclusions & Implications: These data show that although the GAPS test can be used by a range of people who work with young children, it is not a sensitive screener for language impairment when used by trained researchers.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00038.x

Cites

24 of 24 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?

  • Grammar production tests (GAPS, SPELT-P2, SPELT-3) have good sensitivity and specificity.

    “grammar production tests have good sensitivity and specificity (i.e., “GAPS” test—Grammatical Additionally, Phonology Screening: sensitivity > 90, specificity > 93 [150,151]; “SPELT-P2” test—Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test—Preschool 2nd edition [152]: sensitivity > 90, specificity > 95; “SPELT-3” test [153]: sensitivity > 90, specificity = 100)”

    From Developmental Language Disorder: Early Predictors, Age for the Diagnosis, and Diagnostic Tools. A Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [151]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Nash, H., Leavett, R., & Childs, H.
Affiliations
University of York (GB)
Corresponding author
Nash, Hannah
ORCID
Nash, Hannah
Venue
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-05-11
Volume
46
Issue
6
Pages
675-685
ISSN
  • 1368-2822 (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-6984
DOI
10.1111/j.1460-6984.2011.00038.x
OpenAlex
W1485852907
Cited by
6
References
24
Citations by year
2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 1 · 2013: 1
FWCI
1.31
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (submittedVersion)
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
preschool children, test sensitivity, test specificity, teaching assistants, non-word repetition, cut-off values, parental concerns
MeSH terms
Child, Child Language, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Language Development, Language Development Disorders, Language Tests, Language Therapy, Male, Mass Screening, Phonetics, Semantics, Sensitivity and Specificity, 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