Aim A little is known about predictive validity of and professionals' adherence to language screening protocols. This study assessed the concurrent and predictive validity of the Dutch well child language screening protocol for 2‐year‐old children and the effects of protocol deviations by professionals. Methods A prospective cohort study of 124 children recruited and tested between October 2013 and December 2015. Children were recruited from four well child clinics in urban and rural areas. To validate the screening, we assessed children's language ability with standardised language tests following the 2‐year screening and 1 year later. We assessed the concurrent and predictive validity of the screening and of protocol deviations. Results At 2 years, the sensitivity and specificity of the language screening were 0.79 and 0.86, and at 3 years 0.82 and 0.74, respectively. Protocol deviations by professionals were rare (7%) and did not significantly affect the validity of the screening. Conclusion The language screening protocol was valid for detecting current and later language problems. Deviations from the protocol by professionals were rare and did not affect the concurrent nor predictive validity of the protocol. The 2‐year language screening supports professionals working in preventive child health care and deserves wider implementation in well child care.

Only a small number of children with atypical language development who can benefit from early intervention are actually identified before reaching school age. Our aim was to explore perceptions of caregivers of monolingual and multilingual children with and without atypical language development in order to provide relevant themes for improving language screening and referral in Well Child Care (WCC). We interviewed 38 Dutch caregivers of monolingual and multilingual children with and without atypical language development. They were recruited via kindergarten, nurseries, and speech and language pathologists. First, we analyzed the interviews of caregivers of monolingual children with atypical language development and caregivers of multilingual children. Second, we adopted data source triangulation with the interviews of caregivers of monolingual children without atypical language development for further exploration of the results of the first round. Third, we categorized emerging codes across identified subthemes and themes. We identified six subthemes: (1) Perception WCC; (2) Perception consult at the WCC; (3) Opinion of the consult at the WCC; (4) Desires regarding WCC; (5) Parent factors, and (6) Child factors (first and second round). Target themes, relating to the themes and subthemes, that can be used to enhance structural language screening in WCC are: a more family oriented consult, better interprofessional collaboration, and more specific knowledge about language development and different referral routes for children with atypical language development.