Purpose Measures of linguistic processing and grammatical proficiency represent strong candidates for adaptation into language screeners for early elementary students. One key barrier, however, has been the lack of consensus around the preferred reference standard for assigning affected status. Diagnostic accuracies associated with sentence recall and past tense marking index measures were examined relative to 5 different reference standards of language impairment: receipt of language services, clinically significant levels of parental concern, low performance on language measures, a composite requiring at least 2 of these indicators, and a composite requiring convergence across all indicators. Method One thousand sixty grade K–3 students participated in school-based language screenings. All students who failed the screenings and a random sampling of those who passed were invited to participate in confirmatory assessments. The community-based sample was supplemented by a clinical sample of 58 students receiving services for language impairment. Two hundred fifty-four students participated in confirmatory testing. Examiners were naive to participants' status. Results Diagnostic accuracies for the sentence recall and past tense marking index measures varied across the different reference standards (areas under receiver operating characteristic curves: .67–.95). Higher levels of convergence occurred with reference standards based on behavioral measures. When affected status was defined by receipt of services and/or parental ratings, cases presented with higher levels of performance on the language measures than when affected status was based on behavioral criteria. Conclusion These results provide additional support for the adaptation of sentence recall and past tense marking to screen for language impairments in early elementary students. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.8285786

Purpose The estimated prevalence of language disorders in early elementary school-age children is 7%–12%. Despite its prevalence, only 18% of children are identified and receive treatment. Children with language disorders who go unidentified and, consequently, untreated upon entry to kindergarten are at a cumulative risk for academic and social difficulties during their formative and later school years. Since there is no policy supporting universal screening for language impairment identification in public schools, vulnerabilities may exist in referral-based systems for language impairment identification. The primary purpose of this study was to examine the positive predictive value of general education teachers for language impairment identification. Method A record review of special education referrals across four elementary schools was conducted. A total of 177 referrals across all disabilities were examined. Forty-four of those language-based referrals became the focus of this study. Results Results showed, of the 44 referred for language impairment, general education teachers were the least correct of referral sources, with a positive predictive value of .35. Variables of teacher age, sex, years of teaching experience, and years of education did not predict general education teachers' ability to identify children with language impairment. The identification rate across the four schools was 1.38%. Conclusions General education teachers were responsible for nearly half of the referrals made to special education but demonstrated the most difficulty in correctly identifying children with language impairment. As a result, identification rates were considerably lower than prevalence expectations. This is of particular concern as teachers play a primary role in the identification of this population under a referral-based format.

Purpose The purpose of this study was to generate a theory grounded in data explaining caregivers' understanding of their child's language disorder and the perceived role of speech-language pathologists in facilitating this knowledge. Method This study employed grounded theory as a conceptual framework. Qualitative data were generated based on semistructured interviews conducted with 12 mothers of children who had received speech-language pathology services. Results The following themes emerged from the data analysis: (a) Many mothers reported receiving confusing or irrelevant diagnostic terms for language disorder, (b) mothers of children with language disorders were distressed about their children's language problems, (c) mothers did not always trust or understand their children's speech-language pathologist, and (d) mothers were satisfied with the interventions their child had been receiving. Mothers described their children's language disorder using a total of 23 labels, most of which were not useful for accessing meaningful information about the nature of their child's communication problem. Generally, mothers reported they did not receive language-related diagnostic labels from speech-language pathologists for their child's language disorder. Conclusions Two theories were generated from the results: (a) Lack of information provided to mothers about their child's language disorder causes mothers psychological harm that appears to be long lasting. (b) Difficulties in successfully relaying information about language disorders to parents result in negative perceptions of speech-language pathology. Implications and future directions are discussed. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12177390

Purpose: Researchers estimate the prevalence of developmental language disorder (DLD) in 5-year-olds to be between 7% and 12%. Current identification systems in public schools typically favor referral identification formats over targeted or universal screenings. Public schools face unique challenges when assessing the value of screening measures for DLD that include real-world considerations such as administration, time, and resource constraints. This study used the positive predictive value (PPV) of the Redmond Sentence Recall (RSR) to assess its fidelity when administered by special education paraprofessionals. Our obtained PPV was compared across three areas: (a) previous studies that have utilized the RSR, (b) rates extrapolated from the participating school district's preexisting referral system from a previous study, and (c) expectations based on DLD prevalence. Method: Language screenings were conducted in two elementary schools using the RSR administered by school-based paraprofessionals trained on the screener protocol. One hundred sixty-four kindergarten students (age range: 5–6 years) were screened. Confirmatory testing was completed on all students who failed the screener. Results: Of the 164 students screened, 19 failed the RSR (11.5%), and 14 met criteria (8.5%) for DLD (PPV = .74). Our PPV was similar to previously published studies that utilized the RSR using research assistants and was higher than the PPV associated with teacher-based referrals from the participating school district. Conclusion: The RSR represents a potentially useful screener for identifying children at risk for previously unidentified language disorders in public schools. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.22044479

No abstract