The Diagnostic Accuracy and Construct Validity of the Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test—Preschool: Second Edition

Abstract

Purpose-In order to support evidence-based practice, this study served to evaluate the diagnostic accuracy, convergent validity, and divergent validity of the Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test-Preschool: Second Edition (SPELT-P2; J. Dawson, J. A. Eyer, J. Fonkalsrud, 2005) in order to determine whether it can be used as a valid measure for identifying language impairment in preschoolers.Method-The SPELT-P2 was administered to 54 children with typically developing language and 42 children with specific language impairment.Results-A discriminant analysis revealed good sensitivity (90.6%), good specificity (100%), and good positive and negative likelihood ratios, with a standard score cutoff point of 87 used to determine group membership. Analyses of convergent and divergent validity also supported use of the SPELT-P2 for identifying language impairment in preschoolers.Implications-The empirical evidence supports use of the SPELT-P2 as a valid measure for correctly identifying the presence or absence of language impairment in 4-and 5-year-old preschool children. Keywords diagnostics; evidence-based practice; language; specific language impairment Norm-referenced tests are frequently used when diagnosing young children with language impairment. Because of the social, academic, monetary, and ethical consequences of such a diagnosis, it is critical to ensure that the tests that are designed to determine the presence or absence of a language impairment are indeed valid for that purpose (Anastasi, 1988;Messick, 1989;Plante & Vance, 1994;Spaulding, Plante, & Farinella, 2006;Zhang & Tomblin, 2000). Since 1997, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997, P.L. 105-17) has echoed this necessity, requiring that assessments and evaluation measures be "used for purposes for which [they] are valid and reliable" (118 Stat. 2705). This concept was retained in subsequent versions of this law (e.g., Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004; P.L. 108-446, Stat. 2705).As a preliminary step, many test makers consult a panel of experts to evaluate whether the content of the test appears representative of the phenomenon being assessed (content validity). NIH-PA Author ManuscriptNIH-PA Author Manuscript NIH-PA Author ManuscriptHowever, this process is insufficient to establish the extent to which a test reflects its underlying construct (construct validity) (Gray, Plante, Vance, & Henrichsen, 1999;Messick, 1989). Instead, Dollaghan (2004) advocated an evidence-based practice framework that relies on credible studies to assess diagnostic assessments and procedures. Thus, before using a test for diagnostic purposes, the test's construct validity should be established through empirical evaluation.The primary evidence needed to demonstrate that a test can be used to identify cases of language impairment is its diagnostic accuracy. An evaluation of diagnostic accuracy must prove that the test is able to adequately identify children with language impairment as having language im...

Sample Length Affects the Reliability of Language Sample Measures in 3-Year-Olds: Evidence From Parent-Elicited Conversational Samples

“…In clinical practice, some attention has been placed on verifying the reliability and validity of standardized tests (e.g., Bogue et al, 2014;Gray, Plante, Vance, & Henrichsen, 1999;Greenslade et al, 2009;Hutchinson, 1996;McCauley & Swisher, 1984;Pearson, Jackson, & Wu, 2014;Perona, Plante, & Vance, 2005;Plante & Vance, 1994Restrepo et al, 2006;Spaulding, Plante, & Farinella, 2006;Ukrainetz & Blomquist, 2002). However, the evidence for reliability and validity of LSA remains relatively sparse (Eisenberg, Fersko, & Lundgren, 2001).…”

“…A standard score of 87, which yielded a sensitivity of 90.6% and a specificity of 100% (Greenslade, Plante, & Vance, 2009), was used as the cutoff to determine whether a child had a language impairment. It should be noted that this cutoff was generated based on children between the ages of 4;0 and 5;8, instead of 3-year-olds.…”

Deficits in Coordinative Bimanual Timing Precision in Children With Specific Language Impairment

“…They also received a finite verb morphology composite score (i.e., percent correct production of regular past -ed, present third person singular -s, and the copula and auxiliary forms of is, are, and am) greater than 1.25 SD below the mean, using normative data from the local Lafayette, IN, area (Goffman & Leonard, 2000;Leonard, Miller, & Gerber, 1999; M = 53.0, SD = 25.2). The Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test-Preschool 2 using a cutoff of 87 and the finite verb morphology composite score are sensitive and specific indicators of SLI status (Bedore & Leonard, 1998;Goffman & J. Leonard, 2000;Greenslade, Plante, & Vance, 2009).…”

Dose Schedule and Enhanced Conversational Recast Treatment for Children With Specific Language Impairment

“…Children met the standard inclusionary criteria for SLI: language impairment in the absence of other handicapping conditions. Language impairment was indicated by a score of 87 or less on the Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test-Preschool Second Edition (SPELT-P2; Dawson et al, 2003), an empirically derived cutoff score validated for monolingual children (Greenslade, Plante, & Vance, 2006). To rule out the presence of hearing loss, all children passed a pure-tone hearing screening at 20 dB at 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz, and 25 dB at 500 Hz.…”