Cargando…
Universal language development screening: comparative performance of two questionnaires
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Low language ability in early childhood is a strong predictor of later psychopathology as well as reduced school readiness, lower educational attainment, employment problems and involvement with the criminal justice system. Assessment of early language development is univer...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BMJ Publishing Group
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8739429/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36053598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2021-001324 |
_version_ | 1784629096999813120 |
---|---|
author | Wilson, Philip Rush, Robert Charlton, Jenna Gilroy, Vicky McKean, Cristina Law, James |
author_facet | Wilson, Philip Rush, Robert Charlton, Jenna Gilroy, Vicky McKean, Cristina Law, James |
author_sort | Wilson, Philip |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Low language ability in early childhood is a strong predictor of later psychopathology as well as reduced school readiness, lower educational attainment, employment problems and involvement with the criminal justice system. Assessment of early language development is universally offered in many countries, but there has been little evaluation of assessment tools. We planned to compare the screening performance of two commonly used language assessment instruments. METHODS: A pragmatic diagnostic accuracy study was carried out in five areas of England comparing the performance of two screening tools (Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) and Sure Start Language Measure (SSLM)) against a reference test (Preschool Language Scale, 5th edition). RESULTS: Results were available for 357 children aged 23–30 months. The ASQ Communication Scale using optimal cut-off values had a sensitivity of 0.55, a specificity of 0.95 and positive and negative predictive values of 0.53 and 0.95, respectively. The SSLM had corresponding values of 0.83, 0.81, 0.33 and 0.98, respectively. Both screening tools performed relatively poorly in families not using English exclusively in the home. CONCLUSION: The very widely used ASQ Communication Scale performs poorly as a language screening tool, missing over one-third of cases of low language ability. The SSLM performed better as a screening tool. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8739429 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | BMJ Publishing Group |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-87394292022-01-20 Universal language development screening: comparative performance of two questionnaires Wilson, Philip Rush, Robert Charlton, Jenna Gilroy, Vicky McKean, Cristina Law, James BMJ Paediatr Open Screening BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Low language ability in early childhood is a strong predictor of later psychopathology as well as reduced school readiness, lower educational attainment, employment problems and involvement with the criminal justice system. Assessment of early language development is universally offered in many countries, but there has been little evaluation of assessment tools. We planned to compare the screening performance of two commonly used language assessment instruments. METHODS: A pragmatic diagnostic accuracy study was carried out in five areas of England comparing the performance of two screening tools (Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) and Sure Start Language Measure (SSLM)) against a reference test (Preschool Language Scale, 5th edition). RESULTS: Results were available for 357 children aged 23–30 months. The ASQ Communication Scale using optimal cut-off values had a sensitivity of 0.55, a specificity of 0.95 and positive and negative predictive values of 0.53 and 0.95, respectively. The SSLM had corresponding values of 0.83, 0.81, 0.33 and 0.98, respectively. Both screening tools performed relatively poorly in families not using English exclusively in the home. CONCLUSION: The very widely used ASQ Communication Scale performs poorly as a language screening tool, missing over one-third of cases of low language ability. The SSLM performed better as a screening tool. BMJ Publishing Group 2022-01-06 /pmc/articles/PMC8739429/ /pubmed/36053598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2021-001324 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) . |
spellingShingle | Screening Wilson, Philip Rush, Robert Charlton, Jenna Gilroy, Vicky McKean, Cristina Law, James Universal language development screening: comparative performance of two questionnaires |
title | Universal language development screening: comparative performance of two questionnaires |
title_full | Universal language development screening: comparative performance of two questionnaires |
title_fullStr | Universal language development screening: comparative performance of two questionnaires |
title_full_unstemmed | Universal language development screening: comparative performance of two questionnaires |
title_short | Universal language development screening: comparative performance of two questionnaires |
title_sort | universal language development screening: comparative performance of two questionnaires |
topic | Screening |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8739429/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36053598 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjpo-2021-001324 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT wilsonphilip universallanguagedevelopmentscreeningcomparativeperformanceoftwoquestionnaires AT rushrobert universallanguagedevelopmentscreeningcomparativeperformanceoftwoquestionnaires AT charltonjenna universallanguagedevelopmentscreeningcomparativeperformanceoftwoquestionnaires AT gilroyvicky universallanguagedevelopmentscreeningcomparativeperformanceoftwoquestionnaires AT mckeancristina universallanguagedevelopmentscreeningcomparativeperformanceoftwoquestionnaires AT lawjames universallanguagedevelopmentscreeningcomparativeperformanceoftwoquestionnaires |