Cited by 14Language Development and DisordersVoice and Speech DisordersHearing Loss and Rehabilitation

Population-Based Screening of Children for Specific Speech and Language Impairment in Germany: A Systematic Review

Kasper, Jürgen, Kreis, Julia, Scheibler, Fülöp, Möller, Delia, Skipka, Guido, Lange, Stefan, von dem Knesebeck, Olaf·2011·Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica

Abstract

Objective: The study was aimed at evaluating the effectiveness of a systematic population-based screening programme for specific language impairment (SLI) in preschool children in Germany. Methods: The study question was divided into a review of (1) evidence from studies evaluating screening programmes, (2) diagnostic instruments in the German language, and (3) studies evaluating speech and language interventions. A systematic database search was conducted between June and October 2007 and was updated in January and again in May 2008. Relevant studies were identified by 2 independent reviewers based on screened titles/abstracts and full texts. Results: 4,806 studies were screened. The only existing controlled screening study did not provide data for SLI. No diagnostic study met the inclusion criteria. Sixteen randomized intervention studies were included, 3 studies contributed to the appraisal of earlier against later initiation of treatment. Most studies were of limited quality. We found indications of short-term positive effects from language therapies in children with SLI. Long-term outcomes were not investigated. No evidence supporting the advantage of earlier treatment initiation was identified. Conclusions: The benefit of population-based language screening of preschool children with SLI is not proven. Controlled screening studies are therefore necessary. For Germany, the accuracy of existing diagnostic instruments has not yet been sufficiently examined.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1159/000321000

Cites

91 of 91 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
Kasper, J., Kreis, J., Scheibler, F., Möller, D., Skipka, G., Lange, S., & von dem Knesebeck, O.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
  • Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care (DE)
Venue
Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica
Publisher
S. Karger AG
Published
2011
Volume
63
Issue
5
Pages
247-263
ISSN
  • 0015-5705 (ISSN-L)
  • 1021-7762
  • 1421-9972
OpenAlex
W2056900850
Cited by
14
References
91
Citations by year
2023: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
0.13
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Folia Phoniatrica et Logopaedica (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Keywords
specific language impairment, mass screening, preschool children, language screening, language intervention, speech and language intervention, treatment initiation timing, diagnostic tools, German language, Germany
MeSH terms
Articulation Disorders, Child, Preschool, Female, Germany, Humans, Infant, Language Development Disorders, Language Disorders, Language Tests, Male, Mass Screening, Research Design, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Program Evaluation, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Databases, Bibliographic

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