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.

Clinical pathways are associated with reduced in-hospital complications and improved documentation without negatively impacting on length of stay and hospital costs.

Delayed or impaired language development is a common developmental concern, yet there is little agreement about the criteria used to identify and classify language impairments in children. Children's language difficulties are at the interface between education, medicine and the allied professions, who may all adopt different approaches to conceptualising them. Our goal in this study was to use an online Delphi technique to see whether it was possible to achieve consensus among professionals on appropriate criteria for identifying children who might benefit from specialist services. We recruited a panel of 59 experts representing ten disciplines (including education, psychology, speech-language therapy/pathology, paediatrics and child psychiatry) from English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland, New Zealand, United Kingdom and USA). The starting point for round 1 was a set of 46 statements based on articles and commentaries in a special issue of a journal focusing on this topic. Panel members rated each statement for both relevance and validity on a seven-point scale, and added free text comments. These responses were synthesised by the first two authors, who then removed, combined or modified items with a view to improving consensus. The resulting set of statements was returned to the panel for a second evaluation (round 2). Consensus (percentage reporting 'agree' or 'strongly agree') was at least 80 percent for 24 of 27 round 2 statements, though many respondents qualified their response with written comments. These were again synthesised by the first two authors. The resulting consensus statement is reported here, with additional summary of relevant evidence, and a concluding commentary on residual disagreements and gaps in the evidence base.

BackgroundClinical pathways are tools used to guide evidence-based healthcare that have been implemented internationally since the 1980s. However, there is widespread lack of agreement on the impact of clinical pathways on hospital resources and patient outcomes. This can be partially attributed to the confusion for both researchers and healthcare workers regarding what constitutes a clinical pathway. This paper describes efforts made by a team of Cochrane Review authors to develop criteria to assist in the objective identification of clinical pathway studies from the literature.MethodsWe undertook a four-stage process aiming to develop criteria to define a clinical pathway: (1) identify publications exploring the definition of a clinical pathway; (2) derive draft criteria; (3) pilot test the criteria; and (4) modify criteria to maximise agreement between review authors.ResultsPrevious literature and liaison with the European Pathways Association resulted in five criteria being used to define a clinical pathway: (1) the intervention was a structured multidisciplinary plan of care; (2) the intervention was used to translate guidelines or evidence into local structures; (3) the intervention detailed the steps in a course of treatment or care in a plan, pathway, algorithm, guideline, protocol or other 'inventory of actions'; (4) the intervention had timeframes or criteria-based progression; and (5) the intervention aimed to standardise care for a specific clinical problem, procedure or episode of healthcare in a specific population. After pilot testing it was decided that if an intervention met the first criteria (a structured multidisciplinary plan of care) plus three out of the other four criteria then it was included as a clinical pathway for the purposes of this review. In all, 27 studies were included in the final review. The authors of the included studies referred to these interventions as 'clinical pathways', 'protocols', 'care model', 'care map', 'multidisciplinary care', evidence-based care' and 'guideline'.ConclusionsThe criteria used for the identification of relevant studies for this Cochrane Review can be used as a foundation for the development of a standardised, internationally accepted definition of a clinical pathway.

The La Trobe communication questionnaire (LCQ) was designed to measure perceived communicative ability. It was developed to enable collection of information from various sources including the self-perceptions of individuals as well as the perceptions of close others. In this paper we report the development of the questionnaire, its psychometric properties and normative data for the perceptions of young adults and the comparative perceptions of their close others. Participants in the study were 256 adults comprising 147 primary subjects and 109 close others. Primary subjects ranged in age from 16±39 years with a mean age of 20.6 years. The 30 item questionnaire was structured using a modi®ed Likert-type scale with four possible levels of response: (1) never or rarely ; (2) sometimes ; (3) often ; and (4) usually or always. Internal consistency was high (Cronbach's alpha 5 0.8596) and good stability over time for self-report was demonstrated (r 5 0.7558). There was a signi®cant diåerence ( p ! 0.0001) between the perceptions of primary subjects and close others with primary subjects perceiving themselves to have more frequent communication di¬culties, than did their close others. Overall, our ®ndings suggest that the LCQ is a promising means of measuring perceived communicative ability in young adults.