Validation of the Early Language Scale.

The aim of this study was to assess the criterion validity of a new screening instrument, the Early Language Scale (ELS), for the identification of young children at risk for developmental language disorder (DLD), and to determine optimal age-adjusted cut-off scores. We recruited a community-based sample of 265 children aged 1 to 6 years of age. Parents of these children responded on the ELS, a 26-item "yes-no" questionnaire. The children were assessed with extended language tests (language comprehension, word production, sentence production, communication). A composite score out of these tests (two tests below - 1 SD or one below - 1.5 SD) was used as reference standard. We assessed the validity of the ELS, measured by sensitivity, specificity, predictive values, and AUC. The optimal sensitivity/specificity age-dependent cut-off ELS score was at 15th percentile. Sensitivity and specificity were 0.62 and 0.93, respectively. Positive predictive value was moderate (0.53), negative predictive value was high (0.95), the positive likelihood ratio was 9.16, and negative likelihood ratio was 0.41. The area under the ROC curve was 0.88. The items covered the increasing language development for the ages from 1 to 6.Conclusion: The ELS is a valid instrument to identify children with DLD covering an age range of 1 to 6 years in community-based settings. What is Known: • Early identification and treatment of developmental language disorders can reduce negative effects on children's emotional functioning, academic success, and social relationships. • Short, validated language screening instruments that cover the full age range of early childhood language development lack. What is New: • The 26-item Early Language Scale (ELS) is a valid instrument to identify children at risk for developmental language disorder in well-child care and early educational settings among Dutch children aged 1-6 years.

Identifying Milestones in Language Development for Young Children Ages 1 to 6 Years.

OBJECTIVE: Language development is important for children's success in life. Therefore, language is monitored by child health care professionals and parents, but a uniform set of milestones in language development is lacking. Our aim was to identify a set of clear and distinctive milestones that empirically reflect language development in children aged 1 to 6 years of age. METHODS: We obtained a community-based sample of 1381 parents reporting on milestones derived from clinical signs and currently used language screening instruments. We used nonparametric Item Response Theory analysis to identify milestones belonging to one unidimensional scale. RESULTS: Twenty-six milestones were excellently scalable (item H coefficients 0.62-0.90) and formed a strong scale (total H coefficient 0.83). The final set of identified milestones covered vocabulary, grammar, and communication, with an item ordering that holds for all children. CONCLUSIONS: This unidimensional set of 26 clear and distinctive milestones reflects language development in young children and can be used as an instrument to monitor language development.

Response to the Letter to the Editor From Moncrieff (2017) Regarding de Wit et al. (2016), "Characteristics of Auditory Processing Disorders: A Systematic Review".

Purpose: The purpose of this letter is to respond to Moncrieff's (2017) letter to the editor, "Response to de Wit et al., 2016, 'Characteristics of Auditory Processing Disorders: A Systematic Review,'" published in May 2017 by the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. Conclusion: We believe that our original conclusions are valid given the limited evidence that is currently available about the etiology of auditory processing disorders (APD). The focus of our systematic review was to identify the characteristics of children with a diagnosis of APD or a suspicion of APD. The results of our study showed that the characteristics of these children are not specific or limited to the auditory modality but are multimodal instead. In our view, it is incorrect to use the diagnosis APD, because there is not necessarily a specific auditory deficit in a large group of children suffering from listening difficulties. Before we start using any new diagnoses, a better insight into how bottom-up and top-down processes are precisely involved in listening needs to be developed. In addition, more insight is needed with respect to the similarities and differences between the different developmental disorders of children.

Same or Different: The Overlap Between Children With Auditory Processing Disorders and Children With Other Developmental Disorders: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Children diagnosed with auditory processing disorders (APD) experience difficulties in auditory functioning and with memory, attention, language, and reading tasks. However, it is not clear whether the behavioral characteristics of these children are distinctive from the behavioral characteristics of children diagnosed with a different developmental disorder, such as specific language impairment (SLI), dyslexia, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning disorder (LD), or autism spectrum disorder. This study describes the performance of children diagnosed with APD, SLI, dyslexia, ADHD, and LD to different outcome measurements. The aim of this study was to determine (1) which characteristics of APD overlap with the characteristics of children with SLI, dyslexia, ADHD, LD, or autism spectrum disorder; and (2) if there are characteristics that distinguish children diagnosed with APD from children diagnosed with other developmental disorders. DESIGN: A systematic review. Six electronic databases (Pubmed, CINAHL, Eric, PsychINFO, Communication & Mass Media Complete, and EMBASE) were searched to find peer-reviewed studies from 1954 to May 2015. The authors included studies reporting behaviors and performance of children with (suspected) APD and children diagnosed with a different developmental disorder (SLI, Dyslexia, ADHD, and LD). Two researchers identified and screened the studies independently. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's levels-of-evidence scheme. RESULTS: In total, 13 studies of which the methodological quality was moderate were included in this systematic review. In five studies, the performance of children diagnosed with APD was compared with the performance of children diagnosed with SLI: in two with children diagnosed with dyslexia, one with children diagnosed with ADHD, and in another one with children diagnosed with LD. Ten of the studies included children who met the criteria for more than one diagnosis. In four studies, there was a comparison made between the performances of children with comorbid disorders. There were no studies found in which the performance of children diagnosed with APD was compared with the performance of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Children diagnosed with APD broadly share the same characteristics as children diagnosed with other developmental disorders, with only minor differences between them. Differences were determined with the auditory and visual Duration Pattern Test, the Children's Auditory Processing Performance Scale questionnaire, and the subtests of the Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences test, in which noise is spatially separated from target sentences. However, these differences are not consistent between studies and are not found in comparison to all groups of children with other developmental disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Children diagnosed with APD perform equally to children diagnosed with SLI, dyslexia, ADHD, and LD on tests of intelligence, memory or attention, and language tests. Only small differences between groups were found for sensory and perceptual functioning tasks (auditory and visual). In addition, children diagnosed with dyslexia performed poorer in reading tasks compared with children diagnosed with APD. The result is possibly confounded by poor quality of the research studies and the low quality of the used outcome measures. More research with higher scientific rigor is required to better understand the differences and similarities in children with various neurodevelopmental disorders.

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.

Characteristics of Auditory Processing Disorders: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review article is to describe characteristics of auditory processing disorders (APD) by evaluating the literature in which children with suspected or diagnosed APD were compared with typically developing children and to determine whether APD must be regarded as a deficit specific to the auditory modality or as a multimodal deficit. METHOD: Six electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed studies investigating children with (suspected) APD in comparison with typically developing peers. Relevant studies were independently reviewed and appraised by 2 reviewers. Methodological quality was quantified using the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's levels of evidence. RESULTS: Fifty-three relevant studies were identified. Five studies were excluded because of weak internal validity. In total, 48 studies were included, of which only 1 was classified as having strong methodological quality. Significant dissimilarities were found between children referred with listening difficulties and controls. These differences relate to auditory and visual functioning, cognition, language, reading, and physiological and neuroimaging measures. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological quality of most of the incorporated studies was rated moderate due to the heterogeneous groups of participants, inadequate descriptions of participants, and the omission of valid and reliable measurements. The listening difficulties of children with APD may be a consequence of cognitive, language, and attention issues rather than bottom-up auditory processing.