The Identification of Language Impairment in the Selection of Specifically Language-Impaired Subjects

Abstract

This review focused on the methods used to identify language impairment in specifically language-impaired subjects participating in 72 research studies that were described in four journals from 1983 to 1988. The single most frequent source of information used in the identification process was found to be test data. There was, however, considerable variability and, often, a lack of clarity regarding the specific number and identity of tests used. More specific findings on test use indicated that researchers routinely assessed both expressive and receptive language and that they used incomplete tests. When test scores used in identification and selection were examined, there was a wide range of score types, and age-equivalent scores were by far the most common and often the only type of score utilized. Conclusions are drawn regarding the impact of these findings on the interpretation and generalizability of this research literature.

Assessing Growth in Young Children: A Comparison of Raw, Age-Equivalent, and Standard Scores Using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test

“…The use of AE and GE scores for clinical and educational decision-making has a long history, particularly in the identification of students with learning disabilities (Hishinuma & Tadaki, 1997;Reynolds, 1981), diagnosing speech problems and specific language impairment (Lawrence, 1992;McCauley & Demetras, 1990;Plante, 1998), and measuring the development of adaptive behaviors over time among children with developmental disabilities (Chadwick, Cuddy, Kusel, & Taylor, 2005). In spite of their widespread use, AE and GE scores have a number of concerns that limit their clinical utility and minimize the interpretations and decisions that should be made on the basis of these scores.…”

A review of specific language impairment: language characteristics and linguistic interpretations

“…Results of research studies cannot be generalised without more uniform control on the selection criteria for participants. As McCauley and Demetras (1990) pointed out, until selection procedures are more standard across studies, the risk is high of drawing inappropriate conclusions about a population not well defined. In fact, it is quite possible that groups of participants with SLI are so heterogeneous on language parameters that within-group variance may contribute to null results in some projects (Wickstrom et aI., 1985) or contradictory results across similar studies (van der Lely & Howard, 1993).…”

“…These definitions are based on an exclusionary set of criteria that attempt to operationalise the decision to consider a child as language impaired due to neurological, emotional, hearing or developmental factors or to consider the impairment specific to the language domain. An inclusionary criterion requiring a degree of severity of language impairment has proved more difficult to operationalise (McCauley & Demetras, 1990;Tomblin et aI., 1996) and reach consensus about. Language assessment procedures vary according to formality, standardisation and comprehensiveness (Wickstrom et aI., 1985).…”

Measuring and understanding patterns of change in intervention studies with children: Implications for evidence-based practice†

“…There is concern about the numerous and diverse range of instruments that are used to identify children as having language impairments (McCauley & Demetras, 1990). Indeed the use of these measures can lead to quite different profiles of performance.…”