Literature DB >> 31419169

Concurrent Validity of the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test-Second Edition at Age 3: Comparison With Four Diagnostic Measures.

Sarita Eisenberg1, Kristen Victorino2, Sarah Murray3.   

Abstract

Purpose The aim of this study was to examine the concurrent validity of the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test-Second Edition (Fluharty-2; Fluharty, 2001) for mass screenings of language at age 3 years. Method Participants were sixty-two 3-year-old children, 31 who had failed and 31 who had passed the Fluharty-2. Performance on the screening was compared to 4 diagnostic measures: Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test-Preschool, Second Edition; mean length of utterance in morphemes (MLUm), finite verb morphology composite, and Index of Productive Syntax (IPSyn). Results Children who failed the Fluharty-2 scored significantly lower on each of the diagnostic measures than children who passed the Fluharty-2, but the effect size for MLUm was small. Scores on the Fluharty-2 were significantly correlated with scores on the diagnostic measures. There was significant agreement for pass/fail decisions between the Fluharty-2 and diagnostic measures only for IPSyn. However, even for the IPSyn, the agreement rate for passing was only moderate (80%) and the agreement rate for failing was only fair (68%). Conclusion The Fluharty-2 showed limited agreement for pass/fail decisions with all 4 of the diagnostic measures. There was reason to question the validity of 2 of the diagnostic measures-Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test-Preschool, Second Edition and MLUm-for diagnosing language impairment in 3-year-old children. However, there were no such concerns about finite verb morphology composite or IPSyn to account for the limited agreement. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Fluharty-2 would refer both too few at-risk children and too many nonrisk children for a follow-up assessment, making it an inefficient tool for mass screenings of language.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2019        PMID: 31419169      PMCID: PMC7210429          DOI: 10.1044/2019_LSHSS-18-0099

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch        ISSN: 0161-1461            Impact factor:   2.983


  23 in total

1.  Specific language impairment and grammatical morphology: a discriminant function analysis.

Authors:  L M Bedore; L B Leonard
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 2.  The composition of normative groups and diagnostic decision making: shooting ourselves in the foot.

Authors:  Elizabeth D Peña; Tammie J Spaulding; Elena Plante
Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2006-08       Impact factor: 2.408

Review 3.  Evaluation of three proposed markers for language impairment in English: a meta-analysis of diagnostic accuracy studies.

Authors:  Monika Pawlowska
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-12       Impact factor: 2.297

4.  A reconsideration of the relation between age and mean utterance length.

Authors:  H Scarborough; J Wyckoff; R Davidson
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1986-09

5.  The Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test: a population-based validation study using sample-independent decision rules.

Authors:  R A Sturner; J H Heller; S G Funk; T L Layton
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1993-08

6.  A procedure for phonetic transcription by consensus.

Authors:  L D Shriberg; J Kwiatkowski; K Hoffmann
Journal:  J Speech Hear Res       Date:  1984-09

7.  Young Children's Structure Production: A Revision of the Index of Productive Syntax.

Authors:  Evelyn P Altenberg; Jenny A Roberts; Hollis S Scarborough
Journal:  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch       Date:  2018-10-24       Impact factor: 2.983

8.  Late-talking toddlers: MLU and IPSyn outcomes at 3;0 and 4;0.

Authors:  L Rescorla; K Dahlsgaard; J Roberts
Journal:  J Child Lang       Date:  2000-10

9.  Sample length affects the reliability of language sample measures in 3-year-olds: evidence from parent-elicited conversational samples.

Authors:  Ling-Yu Guo; Sarita Eisenberg
Journal:  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch       Date:  2015-04       Impact factor: 2.983

10.  Sentence imitation as a tool in identifying expressive morphosyntactic difficulties in children with severe speech difficulties.

Authors:  Belinda Seeff-Gabriel; Shula Chiat; Barbara Dodd
Journal:  Int J Lang Commun Disord       Date:  2010 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.020

View more
  2 in total

1.  Comparison of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Screening Test Risk Subtest to Two Other Screeners for Low-Income Prekindergartners Who Speak African American English and Live in the Urban South.

Authors:  Christy Wynn Moland; Janna B Oetting
Journal:  Am J Speech Lang Pathol       Date:  2021-09-28       Impact factor: 4.018

Review 2.  Developmental Language Disorder: Early Predictors, Age for the Diagnosis, and Diagnostic Tools. A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Alessandra Sansavini; Maria Elena Favilla; Maria Teresa Guasti; Andrea Marini; Stefania Millepiedi; Maria Valeria Di Martino; Simona Vecchi; Nadia Battajon; Laura Bertolo; Olga Capirci; Barbara Carretti; Maria Paola Colatei; Cristina Frioni; Luigi Marotta; Sara Massa; Letizia Michelazzo; Chiara Pecini; Silvia Piazzalunga; Manuela Pieretti; Pasquale Rinaldi; Renata Salvadorini; Cristiano Termine; Mariagrazia Zuccarini; Simonetta D'Amico; Anna Giulia De Cagno; Maria Chiara Levorato; Tiziana Rossetto; Maria Luisa Lorusso
Journal:  Brain Sci       Date:  2021-05-17
  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.