Improving the reliability and efficiency of scientific research will increase the credibility of the published scientific literature and accelerate discovery. Here we argue for the adoption of measures to optimize key elements of the scientific process: methods, reporting and dissemination, reproducibility, evaluation and incentives. There is some evidence from both simulations and empirical studies supporting the likely effectiveness of these measures, but their broad adoption by researchers, institutions, funders and journals will require iterative evaluation and improvement. We discuss the goals of these measures, and how they can be implemented, in the hope that this will facilitate action toward improving the transparency, reproducibility and efficiency of scientific research.

Developmental dyslexia and specific language impairment (SLI) were for many years treated as distinct disorders but are now often regarded as different manifestations of the same underlying problem, differing only in severity or developmental stage. The merging of these categories has been motivated by the reconceptualization of dyslexia as a language disorder in which phonological processing is deficient. The authors argue that this focus underestimates the independent influence of semantic and syntactic deficits, which are widespread in SLI and which affect reading comprehension and impair attainment of fluent reading in adolescence. The authors suggest that 2 dimensions of impairment are needed to conceptualize the relationship between these disorders and to capture phenotypic features that are important for identifying neurobiologically and etiologically coherent subgroups.

BackgroundLack of agreement about criteria and terminology for children's language problems affects access to services as well as hindering research and practice. We report the second phase of a study using an online Delphi method to address these issues. In the first phase, we focused on criteria for language disorder. Here we consider terminology.MethodsThe Delphi method is an iterative process in which an initial set of statements is rated by a panel of experts, who then have the opportunity to view anonymised ratings from other panel members. On this basis they can either revise their views or make a case for their position. The statements are then revised based on panel feedback, and again rated by and commented on by the panel. In this study, feedback from a second round was used to prepare a final set of statements in narrative form. The panel included 57 individuals representing a range of professions and nationalities.ResultsWe achieved at least 78% agreement for 19 of 21 statements within two rounds of ratings. These were collapsed into 12 statements for the final consensus reported here. The term ‘Language Disorder’ is recommended to refer to a profile of difficulties that causes functional impairment in everyday life and is associated with poor prognosis. The term, ‘Developmental Language Disorder’ (DLD) was endorsed for use when the language disorder was not associated with a known biomedical aetiology. It was also agreed that (a) presence of risk factors (neurobiological or environmental) does not preclude a diagnosis of DLD, (b) DLD can co‐occur with other neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g. ADHD) and (c) DLD does not require a mismatch between verbal and nonverbal ability.ConclusionsThis Delphi exercise highlights reasons for disagreements about terminology for language disorders and proposes standard definitions and nomenclature.

-Language and literacy skills were assessed in 83 8 54 -year olds whose language development had been impaired at 4 years of age. Provided that language problems had resolved by age 5 V2 years, literacy development was normal, but many of the children who still had verbal deficits at 5 V2 years of age did have reading difficulties and persisting oral language impairments later on. In these children, reading comprehension tended to be poor relative to reading accuracy. Syntactic competence in the preschool period accounted for a substantial proportion of the variance in literacy attainments, after allowing for the effects of non-verbal ability. There were only weak links between expressive phonological disorders and later ability to read either meaningful text or non-words.

The Children's Communication Checklist (CCC) was developed to assess aspects of communicative impairment that are not adequately evaluated by contemporary standardised language tests. These are predominantly pragmatic abnormalities seen in social communication, although other qualitative aspects of speech and language were also included. Some items covering social relationships and restricted interests were incorporated, so that the relationship between pragmatic difficulties and other characteristics of pervasive developmental disorders could be explored. Checklist ratings were obtained for 76 children aged 7 to 9 years, all of whom had received special education for language impairment. In 71 cases, 2 raters (usually a teacher and speech-language therapist) independently completed the checklist, making it possible to establish inter-rater reliability. From an initial pool of 93 items, 70 items, grouped into 9 scales, were retained. Five of the subscales were concerned with pragmatic aspects of communication. A composite pragmatic impairment scale formed from these subscales had inter-rater reliability and internal consistency of around .80. This composite discriminated between children with a school diagnosis of semantic-pragmatic disorder and those with other types of specific language impairment (SLI). The majority of children with pragmatic language impairments did not have any evidence of restricted interests or significant difficulties in the domains of social relationships.