Phenome risk classification enables phenotypic imputation and gene discovery in developmental stuttering.

Developmental stuttering is a speech disorder characterized by disruption in the forward movement of speech. This disruption includes part-word and single-syllable repetitions, prolongations, and involuntary tension that blocks syllables and words, and the disorder has a life-time prevalence of 6-12%. Within Vanderbilt's electronic health record (EHR)-linked biorepository (BioVU), only 142 individuals out of 92,762 participants (0.15%) are identified with diagnostic ICD9/10 codes, suggesting a large portion of people who stutter do not have a record of diagnosis within the EHR. To identify individuals affected by stuttering within our EHR, we built a PheCode-driven Gini impurity-based classification and regression tree model, PheML, by using comorbidities enriched in individuals affected by stuttering as predicting features and imputing stuttering status as the outcome variable. Applying PheML in BioVU identified 9,239 genotyped affected individuals (a clinical prevalence of ∼10%) for downstream genetic analysis. Ancestry-stratified GWAS of PheML-imputed affected individuals and matched control individuals identified rs12613255, a variant near CYRIA on chromosome 2 (B = 0.323; p value = 1.31 × 10-8) in European-ancestry analysis and rs7837758 (B = 0.518; p value = 5.07 × 10-8), an intronic variant found within the ZMAT4 gene on chromosome 8, in African-ancestry analysis. Polygenic-risk prediction and concordance analysis in an independent clinically ascertained sample of developmental stuttering cases validate our GWAS findings in PheML-imputed affected and control individuals and demonstrate the clinical relevance of our population-based analysis for stuttering risk.

Reconceptualizing developmental language disorder as a spectrum disorder: issues and evidence.

BACKGROUND: There is considerable variability in the presentation of developmental language disorder (DLD). Disagreement amongst professionals about how to characterize and interpret the variability complicates both the research on understanding the nature of DLD and the best clinical framework for diagnosing and treating children with DLD. We describe and statistically examine three primary possible models for characterizing the variability in presentation in DLD: predictable subtypes; individual differences; and continuum/spectrum. AIMS: To test these three models of DLD in a population-based sample using two distinct types of cluster analyses. METHODS & PROCEDURES: This study included children with DLD (n = 505) from the US Epidemiological Study of Language Impairment database. All available language and cognitive measures were included. Two cluster methods were used: Ward's method and K-means. Optimal cluster sizes were selected using Bayesian information criteria (BIC). Bootstrapping and permutation methods were used to evaluate randomness of clustering. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Both clustering analyses yielded more than 10 clusters, and the clusters did not have spatial distinction: many of these clusters were not clinically interpretable. However, tests of random clustering revealed that the cluster solutions obtained did not arise from random aggregation. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Non-random clustering coupled with a large number of non-interpretable subtypes provides empirical support for the continuum/spectrum and individual differences models. Although there was substantial support for the continuum/spectrum model and weaker support for the individual differences model, additional research testing these models should be completed. Based on these results, clinicians working with children with DLD should focus on creating treatment plans that address the severity of functioning rather than seeking to identify and treat distinct subtypes. Additional consideration should be given to reconceptualizing DLD as a spectrum condition.

Construct Validity of the Viking Speech Scale.

OBJECTIVE: The Viking Speech Scale (VSS) reliably classifies the speech performance of children with cerebral palsy. This paper aims to establish the construct validity of the VSS by testing the extent to which percentage intelligibility in single word speech and connected speech predicts VSS rating. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of two sets of anonymised data collected for previous research. The full data set comprised 79 children with cerebral palsy from the US (n = 43) and the UK (n = 36): (43 boys, 36 girls); mean age 7.2 years (SD 3.3). Single word intelligibility was measured using the TOCS+ words for US children and Children's Speech Intelligibility Measure for the UK children. Connected speech intelligibility was measured from a subset of repeated sentences in TOCS+ for US children and picture description for the UK children. We used ordinal logistic regression to examine prediction of VSS rating by percentage single word and connected speech intelligibility scores in both samples. RESULTS: Percentage single word intelligibility and connected speech intelligibility predicted VSS rating in univariate and multivariate regression models for both the US and UK samples. CONCLUSION: Intelligibility predicts VSS for both single words and connected speech, establishing the construct validity of VSS.

Differential profiles of four groups of children referred to an autism diagnostic service in Belgium: Autism-specific hallmarks.

OBJECTIVE:: This article aims at exploring distinctive hallmarks of autistic disorders compared to other groups presenting mimicking and/or overlapping conditions. METHOD:: The exploratory study involved 196 children with autism, intellectual disability, language impairment and psycho-affective disorders previously referred to an autism diagnostic service. The autism discriminative tool (ADT), a behavioural checklist, was used to compile and analyse the children's profiles based on the clinical information gathered during diagnostic assessments. All samples were compared and analysed separately according to the checklist's four domains. RESULTS:: Children with autism showed greater frequency and severity of impairments on the ADT's social and communication categories. These children also differed from other groups in terms of specific rigid behaviours and high frequency of atypical sensory responses. CONCLUSIONS:: Results illustrate the psychopathology of autism spectrum disorder suspected children referred to a specialized autism diagnostic service, doing so by providing us with specific clinical profiles.

Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology.

BACKGROUND: Lack 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. METHODS: The 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. RESULTS: We 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. CONCLUSIONS: This Delphi exercise highlights reasons for disagreements about terminology for language disorders and proposes standard definitions and nomenclature.

Subgroups in language trajectories from 4 to 11 years: the nature and predictors of stable, improving and decreasing language trajectory groups.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about the nature, range and prevalence of different subgroups in language trajectories extant in a population from 4 to 11 years. This hinders strategic targeting and design of interventions, particularly targeting those whose difficulties will likely persist. METHODS: Children's language abilities from 4 to 11 years were investigated in a specialist language longitudinal community cohort (N = 1,910). Longitudinal trajectory latent class modelling was used to characterise trajectories and identify subgroups. Multinomial logistic regression was used to identify predictors associated with the language trajectories children followed. RESULTS: Three language trajectory groups were identified: 'stable' (94% of participants), 'low-decreasing' (4%) and 'low-improving' (2%). A range of child and family factors were identified that were associated with following either the low-improving or low-increasing language trajectory; many of them shared. The low-improving group was associated with mostly environmental risks: non-English-speaking background, social disadvantage and few children's books in the home. The low-decreasing group was associated with mainly biological risks: low birth weight, socioemotional problems, lower family literacy and learning disability. CONCLUSIONS: By 4 years, services can be confident that most children with low language will remain low to 11 years. Using rigid cut-points in language ability to target interventions is not recommended due to continued individual variability in language development. Service delivery models should incorporate monitoring over time, targeting according to language abilities and associated risks and delivery of a continuum of interventions across the continuum of need.

Validity of the Communication Function Classification System for use with preschool children with communication disorders.

AIM: To evaluate construct and predictive validity of the Communication Function Classification System (CFCS) for use with preschool children with a range of speech and language disorders. METHOD: Seventy-seven preschool children with speech and language disorders (50 males, 27 females; mean 2y 7mo, standard deviation [SD] 1y) participated in this cohort study. Preschool children had speech and language, language-only, or speech-only disorders. Together with parent input, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) completed the CFCS at time 1. Parents and SLPs then independently completed a validated change-detecting functional communication outcome measure, the Focus on the outcomes of Communication Under Six (FOCUS), three times: at assessment (time 1), at the start of treatment (time 2), and at the end of treatment (time 3). RESULTS: There was a significant negative correlation between CFCS classifications and FOCUS scores at all three measurement points for the ratings by both parents and SLPs (correlations ranged from -0.60 to -0.76). As expected, no correlations between CFCS classifications and FOCUS change scores were statistically significant. INTERPRETATION: This study provides evidence of construct and predictive validity of the CFCS, demonstrating its value as a discriminative tool for use with preschool children with a range of speech and language disorders.

Intensity of language treatment: contribution to children's language outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Treatment intensity is an important factor in designing and delivering treatments to children with language impairment (LI). However, to date very little is understood about cumulative intervention intensity for children with LI in the US public school system. AIMS: To examine treatment intensity (dose: time spent on language; frequency: number of sessions; duration: one academic year) as delivered to children with LI within US public schools and to explore its relation to children's language outcomes. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A total of 233 children with LI on the caseloads of 73 speech-language pathologists (SLPs) participated. Direct child measures, weekly treatment logs and videotapes were collected to characterize children's language outcomes and treatment experiences. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Children on average received 36 min of treatment during 1.3 treatment sessions per week. Children's language severity did not predict children's treatment intensity. Structural equation modelling indicated a significant interaction between frequency and dose of treatment: children receiving high frequency and low dose, or low frequency and high dose treatment had better outcomes than children receiving high frequency, high dose or low frequency, low dose treatment. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Findings suggest that more intensive language treatment, measured as time, is not necessarily associated with better treatment outcomes.

Why is it so hard to reach agreement on terminology? The case of developmental language disorder (DLD).

A recent project entitled CATALISE used the Delphi method to reach a consensus on terminology for unexplained language problems in children. 'Developmental language disorder' (DLD) was the term agreed by a panel of 57 experts. Here I reflect on points of difficulty that arose when attempting to reach a consensus, using qualitative information from comments made by panel members to illustrate the kinds of argument used. One issue of debate was the use of labels, in particular the term 'disorder', which was seen as having both pros and cons. The potential for labels to stigmatize or create low expectations was a particular concern. However, labels could also ensure language problems were not trivialized and could help avoid stigma by providing an explanation for behaviours that might otherwise meet with disapproval. Further debate surrounded issues of how best to identify cases of disorder. Although it was agreed there should be a focus on cases with a poor prognosis, it was recognized that our knowledge of factors related to prognosis was still incomplete. Furthermore, there was a tension between use of standardized tests, which allow for a relatively objective and reliable assessment of language, and more qualitative observations, which can capture functional aspects of communication that are not always picked up on formal assessment. Debate also surrounded the issue of the relationship between DLD and other conditions. Some favoured drawing a distinction between DLD and language disorders associated with other conditions, and others regarded such distinctions as unnecessary. We concluded that it was misleading to assume co-occurring conditions were causes of language disorder, but it was helpful to distinguish DLD from cases of language disorder associated with 'differentiating conditions' that had a known or likely biomedical origin, including brain injury, sensorineural hearing loss, genetic syndromes, intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder. Furthermore, DLD could co-occur with milder neurodevelopmental disorders that did not have a clear biomedical aetiology. Normal-range non-verbal IQ has traditionally been incorporated in the diagnosis of DLD, but this was rejected as unsupported by evidence. DLD is a category that has utility in identifying children who would benefit from speech-language therapy services, but it should not be thought of as a well-defined condition. DLD has a multifactorial aetiology, is heterogeneous in terms of language features and overlaps with other neurodevelopmental disorders. Our notions of DLD are likely to be refined by further research into aetiology, associated characteristics and intervention effectiveness.

Atypical speech and language development: a consensus study on clinical signs in the Netherlands.

BACKGROUND: Atypical speech and language development is one of the most common developmental difficulties in young children. However, which clinical signs characterize atypical speech-language development at what age is not clear. AIM: To achieve a national and valid consensus on clinical signs and red flags (i.e. most urgent clinical signs) for atypical speech-language development in children from 1 to 6 years of age. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A two-round Delphi study in the Netherlands with a national expert panel (n = 24) of speech and language therapists was conducted. The panel members responded to web-based questionnaires addressing clinical signs. Consensus was defined as ≥ 70% of the experts agreeing on an issue. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: The first round resulted in a list of 161 characteristics of atypical speech and language development. The second round led to agreement on 124 clinical signs and 34 red flags. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Dutch national consensus concerns 17-23 clinical signs per age year for the description of an atypical speech-language development in young children and three to 10 characteristics per age year being red flags for atypical speech-language development. This consensus contributes to early identification and diagnosis of children with atypical speech-language development, awareness and research.

[Acoustic reflexes of children with and without central auditory processing disorders]. / Stapediusreflexe von Kindern mit und ohne auditive Verarbeitungs- und Wahrnehmungsstörungen.

BACKGROUND: According to international standards, determination of acoustic reflex thresholds (ART) is one of the established objective measurements in the diagnostic workup of central auditory processing disorders (CAPD). However, there is still no evidence for the significance of ART in CAPD diagnosis. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This study tested 57 children with proven CAPD and 50 healthy children (control group) with regard to group differences in mean ART (sine tones or bandpass-filtered noise). Additionally, it was investigated whether there were group differences between the mean dissociations of ART for sine tones or bandpass filtered noise. RESULTS: Neither ipsi- nor contralaterally were significant clinically relevant group differences (p < 0.050) between the mean ART of children with and without CAPD found. After Bonferroni correction, a significant group difference in the percentage of non-triggered reflexes was only observed with left-sided contralateral 2 kHz stimuli. Concerning the number of dissociations ≥20 dB, no significant group differences (p < 0.050) were detected either ipsi- or contralaterally (Fisher's test). CONCLUSION: The results of the study seem to indicate no clinically relevant ability of ART measurements to distinguish between children with and without CAPD. This renders the benefit of ART measurements for CAPD diagnosis questionable.

Assessment of language impairment in bilingual children using semantic tasks: two languages classify better than one.

BACKGROUND: Significant progress has been made in the identification of language impairment in children are bilingual. Bilingual children's vocabulary knowledge may be distributed across languages. Thus, when testing bilingual children it is difficult to know how to weigh each language for diagnostic purposes. Even when conceptual scoring is used in vocabulary testing, bilingual children may score below that of their typical monolingual peers. AIMS: The primary aim was to evaluate the classification accuracy of two approaches (total semantics score and two-dimensional bilingual coordinate score) that combined lexical-semantic knowledge across two languages. We investigated the classification accuracy of the English and Spanish semantics subtest using the experimental version of the Bilingual English Spanish Assessment (BESA) with bilingual children with and without language impairment. METHODS: A total of 78 bilinguals with balanced exposure to English and Spanish (15 with language impairment, 63 with typical development) participated. Children were between 4;0 and 6;11 years old. Discriminant function analysis explored the extent to which these children were accurately classified when combining Spanish and English subtests. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Discriminant analysis yielded above 85% correct classification for balanced bilingual children for both approaches. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: For the most accurate assessment and diagnostic decision-making for bilinguals, approaches that consider both languages together are recommended.

Accuracy of Telehealth-Administered Measures to Screen Language in Spanish-Speaking Preschoolers.

INTRODUCTION: There is a critical need for telehealth language screening measures for use with Spanish-speaking children because of the shortage of bilingual providers and the current lack of psychometrically sound measures that can be administered via telehealth. The purpose of the current study was to describe the classification accuracy of individual telehealth language screening measures as well as the accuracy of combinations of measures used with Spanish-speaking preschoolers from rural and underserved areas of the country. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This study applied a hybrid telehealth approach that implemented synchronous videoconferencing, videocasting, and traditional pen and paper measures. Screening measures included a processing efficiency measure (Spanish nonword repetition [NWR]), language sampling, and a developmental language questionnaire. Eighty-two mostly Spanish-speaking preschool-age children and their parents participated. Thirty-four children had language impairment (LI), and 48 had typical language development. RESULTS: Although many of the individual measures were significantly associated with standardized language scores (r=0.27-0.55), not one of the measures had classification values of 0.8 or higher, which is recommended when screening for LI. However, when NWR scores were combined with language sample or parent survey measures, promising classification accuracy values that approached or were higher than 0.8 were obtained. CONCLUSIONS: This research provides preliminary evidence showing the effectiveness of a hybrid telehealth model in screening the language development of Spanish-speaking children. A processing efficiency measure, NWR, combined with a parent survey or language sample measure can provide informative and accurate diagnostic information when screening Spanish-speaking preschool-age children for LI.

Heterogeneity and plasticity in the development of language: a 17-year follow-up of children referred early for possible autism.

BACKGROUND: Delayed, abnormal language is a common feature of autism and language therapy often a significant component of recommended treatment. However, as with other disorders with a language component, we know surprisingly little about the language trajectories and how varied these might be across different children. Thus, we know little about how and when language problems might resolve, whether there are periods of relative stability or lack of change and what periods might offer more favourable circumstances for intervention. METHODS: Expressive and receptive language was measured on six occasions between age 2 and 19 on a cohort of 192 children initially referred for autism. Latent class growth models were fitted to characterize the patterns of heterogeneous development. RESULTS: Latent class growth analysis identified seven classes. Between age 6 and 19, all classes tracked in parallel. Between ages 2 and 6, development was more heterogeneous with considerable variation in relative progress. In all groups, receptive and expressive language developed very largely in tandem. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirmed previous analysis of children with specific language impairment where progress beyond age 6 was remarkably uniform. Greater variation was evident before this age with some groups making clearly better or worse progress compared to others. While this developmental heterogeneity may simply be a reflection of variation in preexisting and unchanging biological disposition, it may also reflect, at least in part, greater sensitivity in the early years to environments that are more or less supportive of language development. These findings contribute to the case for the importance of early intervention.

Ten questions about terminology for children with unexplained language problems.

BACKGROUND: In domains other than language, there is fairly consistent diagnostic terminology to refer to children's developmental difficulties. For instance, the terms 'dyslexia', 'attention deficit hyperactivity disorder' and 'autistic spectrum disorder' are used for difficulties with reading, attention or social cognition, respectively. There is no agreed label, however, for children with unexplained language problems. AIMS: To consider whether we need labels for unexplained language problems in children, and if so, what terminology is appropriate. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: There are both advantages and disadvantages to labels, but they are important to ensure children receive services, and to increase our knowledge of the nature and causes of such problems. A survey of labels in current use found 132 different terms, 33 of which had 600 or more returns on Google Scholar between 1994 and 2013. Many of these labels were too general to be useful. Of the remainder, the term 'specific language impairment' was the most commonly used. CONCLUSIONS: The current mayhem in diagnostic labels is unsustainable; it causes confusion and impedes research progress and access to appropriate services. We need to achieve consensus on diagnostic criteria and terminology. The DSM-5 term 'language disorder' is problematic because it identifies too wide a range of conditions on an internet search. One solution is to retain specific language impairment, with the understanding that 'specific' means idiopathic (i.e., of unknown origin) rather than implying there are no other problems beyond language. Other options are the terms 'primary language impairment', 'developmental language disorder' or 'language learning impairment'.

Terminological debate over language impairment in children: forward movement and sticking points.

BACKGROUND: There is no agreed terminology for describing childhood language problems. In this special issue Reilly et al. and Bishop review the history of the most widely used label, 'specific language impairment' (SLI), and discuss the pros and cons of various terms. Commentators from a range of backgrounds, in terms of both discipline and geographical background, were then invited to respond to each lead article. AIMS: To summarize the main points made by the commentators and identify (1) points of consensus and disagreement, (2) issues for debate including the drivers for change and diagnostic criteria, and (3) the way forward. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: There was some common ground, namely that the current situation is not tenable because it impedes clinical and research progress and impacts on access to services. There were also wide-ranging disagreements about which term should be adopted. However, before debating the broad diagnostic label it is essential to consider the diagnostic criteria and the systems used to classify childhood language problems. This is critical in order to facilitate communication between and among clinicians and researchers, across sectors (in particular health and education), with the media and policy-makers and with families and individuals who have language problems. We suggest four criteria be taken into account when establishing diagnostic criteria, including: (1) the features of language, (2) the impact on functioning and participation, (3) the presence/absence of other impairments, and (4) the language trajectory or pathway and age of onset. In future, these criteria may expand to include the genetic and neural markers for language problems. Finally, there was overarching agreement about the need for an international and multidisciplinary forum to move this debate forward. The purpose would be to develop consensus regarding the diagnostic criteria and diagnostic label for children with language problems. This process should include canvassing the views of families and people with language problems as well as the views of policy-makers.

Specific language impairment: a convenient label for whom?

BACKGROUND: The term 'specific language impairment' (SLI), in use since the 1980s, describes children with language impairment whose cognitive skills are within normal limits where there is no identifiable reason for the language impairment. SLI is determined by applying exclusionary criteria, so that it is defined by what it is not rather than by what it is. The recent decision to not include SLI in DSM-5 provoked much debate and concern from researchers and clinicians. AIMS: To explore how the term 'specific language impairment' emerged, to consider how disorders, including SLI, are generally defined and to explore how societal changes might impact on use the term. METHODS & PROCEDURES: We reviewed the literature to explore the origins of the term 'specific language impairment' and present published evidence, as well as new analyses of population data, to explore the validity of continuing to use the term. OUTCOMES & RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: We support the decision to exclude the term 'specific language impairment' from DSM-5 and conclude that the term has been a convenient label for researchers, but that the current classification is unacceptably arbitrary. Furthermore, we argue there is no empirical evidence to support the continued use of the term SLI and limited evidence that it has provided any real benefits for children and their families. In fact, the term may be disadvantageous to some due to the use of exclusionary criteria to determine eligibility for and access to speech pathology services. We propose the following recommendations. First, that the word 'specific' be removed and the label 'language impairment' be used. Second, that the exclusionary criteria be relaxed and in their place inclusionary criteria be adopted that take into account the fluid nature of language development particularly in the preschool period. Building on the goodwill and collaborations between the clinical and research communities we propose the establishment of an international consensus panel to develop an agreed definition and set of criteria for language impairment. Given the rich data now available in population studies it is possible to test the validity of these definitions and criteria. Consultation with service users and policy-makers should be incorporated into the decision-making process.

[Evaluation of 2 German Parental Questionnaires: a comparative analysis of the FRAKIS questionnaire for early speech development and the early lexical development inventory ELAN for 2-year-olds]. / Validität der Elternfragebögen FRAKIS und ELAN bei der Vorsorgeuntersuchung U7.

OBJECTIVE: The German parental questionnaires FRAKIS and ELAN are 2 screening instruments, usable in the German preventive paediatric examinations for 2-year-olds. This study investigates the difference between the questionnaires with regard to validity, reliability, time and cost-efficiency and usability in daily clinical practice. METHOD: The parents of 25 children filled in the questionnaires FRAKIS and ELAN. As a reference test, the German speech development test 2 (SETK-2, Grimm 2000) was applied. Vocabulary results were compared with SETK-2 subtest production I (word production). RESULTS: Both parental questionnaires correlated significantly with the SETK-2 subtest production I. ELAN and FRAKIS showed equal results in classifying patients as "critical-below average" or "uncritical-indifferent". CONCLUSION: The ELAN as well as FRAKIS are both appropriate screening tools for identifying language developmental delay in 2-year-olds.

[Guideline-conform diagnostics in language impairments]. / Leitliniengerechte Diagnostik bei Spracherwerbsstörungen.

In order to distinguish more accurately and easily between language difficulties in need of therapy or special support versus language impairments a S2K guideline was developed by interdisciplinary teams of different (medical) societies and professional associations. This guideline was published in 2011 and has replaced all existing monodisciplinary guidelines. According to the new S2K guideline standardised measures of language testing are mandatory. Apart from reviewing the S2K guidelines, this article aims to suggest how these guidelines can be established in clinical practice. By closely following this new guideline, testing and diagnosing children with language difficulties is believed to be enhanced considerably, and also comply with quality management standards.

Early language delay phenotypes and correlation with later linguistic abilities.

OBJECTIVES: The present study focused on examining the continuity and directionality of language skills in late talkers (LTs) and identifying factors which might contribute to language outcomes at the age of 3 years. METHODS: Subjects were 23 Cypriot-Greek-speaking toddlers classified as LTs and 24 age-matched typically developing peers (TDs). Participants were assessed at 28, 32 and 36 months, using various linguistic measures such as size of receptive and expressive vocabulary, mean length of utterance (MLU) of words and number of consonants produced. Data on otitis media familial history were also analyzed. RESULTS: The ANOVA results indicated parallel developmental profiles between the two groups, with a language lag characterizing LTs. Concurrent correlations between measures showed that poor phonetic inventories in the LT group at 28 months predicted poor MLU at the ages of 32 and 36 months. Significant cross-lagged correlations supported the finding that poor phonetic inventories at 28 months served as a good predictor for MLU and expressive vocabulary at the age of 32 and for MLU at 36 months. CONCLUSIONS: The results highlight the negative effect of early language delay on language skills up to the age of 3 years and lend support to the current literature regarding the universal linguistic picture of early and persistent language delay. Based on the current results, poor phonetic inventories at the age of intake might serve as a predictive factor for language outcomes at the age of 36 months. Finally, the findings are discussed in view of the need for further research with a focus on more language-sensitive tools in testing later language outcomes.