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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wilson, Philip, Rush, Robert, Charlton, Jenna, Gilroy, Vicky, McKean, Cristina, Law, James
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