CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 427Language Development and DisordersEarly Childhood Education and DevelopmentDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Screening for Speech and Language Delay in Preschool Children: Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

Nelson, Heidi D., Nygren, Peggy, Walker, Miranda, Panoscha, Rita·2006·Pediatrics
DOI 10.1542/peds.2005-1467
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND. PEDIATRICS (ISSN Numbers: Print, 0031-4005; Online, 1098-4275). Published in the public domain by the American Academy of Pediatrics.Speech and language development is a useful indicator of a child's overall development and cognitive ability and is related to school success. Identification of children at risk for developmental delay or related problems may lead to intervention services and family assistance at a young age, when the chances for improvement are best. However, optimal methods for screening for speech and language delay have not been identified, and screening is practiced inconsistently in primary care. PURPOSE. We sought to evaluate the strengths and limits of evidence about the effectiveness of screening and interventions for speech and language delay in preschool-aged children to determine the balance of benefits and adverse effects of routine screening in primary care for the development of guidelines by the US Preventive Services Task Force. The target population includes all children up to 5 years old without previously known conditions associated with speech and language delay, such as hearing and neurologic impairments. METHODS. Studies were identified from Medline, PsycINFO, and CINAHL databases (1966 to November 19, 2004), systematic reviews, reference lists, and experts. The evidence review included only English-language, published articles that are available through libraries. Only randomized, controlled trials were considered for examining the effectiveness of interventions. Outcome measures were considered if they were obtained at any time or age after screening and/or intervention as long as the initial assessment occurred while the child was ≤5 years old. Outcomes included speech and language measures and other functional and health outcomes such as social behavior. A total of 745 full-text articles met our eligibility criteria and were reviewed. Data were extracted from each included study, summarized descriptively, and rated for quality by using criteria specific to different study designs developed by the US Preventive Services Task Force. RESULTS. The use of risk factors for selective screening has not been evaluated, and a list of specific risk factors to guide primary care physicians has not been developed or tested. Sixteen studies about potential risk factors for speech and language delay in children enrolled heterogeneous populations, had dissimilar inclusion and exclusion criteria, and measured different risk factors and outcomes. The most consistently reported risk factors included a family history of speech and language delay, male gender, and perinatal factors. Other risk factors reported less consistently included educational levels of the mother and father, childhood illnesses, birth order, and family size. The performance characteristics of evaluation techniques that take ≤10 minutes to administer were described in 24 studies relevant to screening. Studies that were rated good to fair quality reported wide ranges of sensitivity and specificity when compared with reference standards (sensitivity: 17–100%; specificity: 45–100%). Most of the evaluations, however, were not designed for screening purposes, the instruments measured different domains, and the study populations and settings were often outside of primary care. No “gold standard” has been developed and tested for screening, reference standards varied across studies, few studies compared the performance of ≥2 screening techniques in 1 population, and comparisons of a single screening technique across different populations are lacking. Fourteen good- and fair-quality randomized, controlled trials of interventions reported significantly improved speech and language outcomes compared with control groups. Improvement was demonstrated in several domains including articulation, phonology, expressive language, receptive language, lexical acquisition, and syntax among children in all age groups studied and across multiple therapeutic settings. Improvement in other functional outcomes such as socialization skills, self-esteem, and improved play themes were demonstrated in some, but not all, of the 4 studies that measured them. In general, studies of interventions were small and heterogeneous, may be subject to plateau effects, and reported short-term outcomes based on various instruments and measures. As a result, long-term outcomes are not known, interventions could not be compared directly, and generalizability is questionable. Conclusions. Use of risk factors to guide selective screening is not supported by studies. Several aspects of screening have been inadequately studied to determine optimal methods, including which instrument to use, the age at which to screen, and which interval is most useful. Trials of interventions demonstrate improvement in some outcome measures, but conclusions and generalizability are limited. Data are not available addressing other key issues including the effectiveness of screening in primary care settings, role of enhanced surveillance by primary care physicians before referral for diagnostic evaluation, non–speech and language and long-term benefits of interventions, and adverse effects of screening and interventions.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1542/peds.2005-1467

Cites

92 of 92 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?

  • Nelson et al. found no studies addressing the question of appropriate age range and highlighted the need to derive indications for optimal ages and intervals for screening from additional work about the effectiveness of school-based interventions.

    “The authors found no studies addressing the question and highlighted the need to derive indications for the identification of optimal ages and intervals for screening from additional work about the effectiveness of school-based interventions.”

    From Developmental Language Disorder: Early Predictors, Age for the Diagnosis, and Diagnostic Tools. A Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [67]

  • Some early predictors (communicative gestures, communicative skills, receptive and productive vocabulary size, nonverbal cognitive abilities) can be easily observed regardless of the language of the children.

    “Some of the early predictors (i.e., communicative gestures [75,79,80,81,86]; communicative skills [75,82,83,86]; receptive and productive vocabulary size [67,73,75,76,82,83,85,86,87]; nonverbal cognitive abilities [73]) can be easily observed regardless of the language of the children.”

    From Developmental Language Disorder: Early Predictors, Age for the Diagnosis, and Diagnostic Tools. A Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [67]

  • Early speech and language delays can result in poorer educational outcomes and longer term adverse cognitive and behavioral outcomes throughout the life course.

    “Speech and language development is known to be an important overall developmental milestone in children and early speech and language delays can result in poorer educational outcomes and longer term adverse cognitive and behavioral outcomes throughout the life course [2].”

    From The effect of moderate gestational alcohol consumption during pregnancy on speech and language outcomes in children: a systematic review (2014) · cites this paper as [2]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Nelson, H. D., Nygren, P., Walker, M., & Panoscha, R.
Affiliations
Oregon Health & Science University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Pediatrics
Publisher
American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP)
Published
2006-02-01
Volume
117
Issue
2
Pages
e298-e319
ISSN
  • 0031-4005 (ISSN-L)
  • 1098-4275
DOI
10.1542/peds.2005-1467
OpenAlex
W2169234951
Cited by
427
References
92
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 32 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 24 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 37 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 18
FWCI
4.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • PEDIATRICS (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
U.S. Public Health Service (290-02-0024)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Education › Early Childhood Education and Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
speech and language delay, developmental delay screening, preschool children, primary care, risk factors, screening effectiveness, speech and language intervention, family history, perinatal factors, USPSTF recommendations, birth order, maternal education, birth weight, family size, gender differences
MeSH terms
Developmental Disabilities, Child, Preschool, Humans, Language Development Disorders, Language Therapy, Primary Health Care, Speech Disorders, Speech Therapy

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