Establishing consensus among community clinicians on how to categorize and define preschoolers’ speech and language impairments at assessment

Cunningham, Barbara Jane; Turkstra, Lyn S.

doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2019.105925

Cited by 9 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, the Delphi methodology is conducted over several consecutive rounds (usually three; Birko et al, 2015;Linstone & Turoff, 2002). In a 'modified Delphi study', statements to be rated are directly provided in the first round, based on a preliminary literature search (Cunningham et al, 2019;Denman et al, 2019). After each round, the panel's responses are synthesised, and areas of agreement/disagreement are identified.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criteria for creating new standard reading passages for the assessment of speech and voice: A Delphi consensus study

Pommée

Balaguer

Mauclair

et al. 2022

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Standard reading passages allow for the study of the integrated functions of speech and voice components in contextual, running speech, with target stimuli in a controlled environment. In both clinical practice and research, these texts provide rapid insight into the characteristics of the patient's speech, with fewer hesitations than in conversational speech and better predictability by the evaluator. Although a plethora of texts exist in different languages, they present various limitations. A specifically created standardised text in each language allowing for an ecological assessment of speech and voice functions, meeting most required criteria for standard speech and voice assessment and adapted to the target language's cultural and linguistic specificities, would therefore be an interesting option. However, no guidelines exist for the creation of such a reading passage. This article describes the international Delphi consensus study carried out to identify a minimal set of criteria to take into account when creating standard reading passages for an overall speech and voice assessment in adolescents and adults. This survey was conducted in three consecutive rounds; forty experts participated in the first round, with a total dropout of 17% from round 1 to round 3. It results in a minimal set of ten criteria which were selected by a majority of the experts and were rated as most important. This set contains five phoneme-level, two word-level, two sentence-level criteria and one global-level criterion. It can be used as a general guideline for the creation of standard reading passages in Indo-European Romance and Germanic languages such as English, French and German. The construction of a new reading passage in French following this guideline is briefly described.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Criteria for creating new standard reading passages for the assessment of speech and voice: A Delphi consensus study

Pommée

Balaguer

Mauclair

et al. 2022

Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Delphi methodology is conducted over several consecutive rounds (usually three) (Birko et al, 2015;Linstone & Turoff 2002). In a 'modified Delphi study', statements to be rated are directly provided in the first round, based on a preliminary literature search (Cunningham et al, 2019;Denman et al, 2019). After each round, the panel's responses are synthesized, and areas of agreement/disagreement are identified.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intelligibility and comprehensibility: A Delphi consensus study

Pommée

Balaguer

Mauclair

et al. 2021

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Intelligibility and comprehensibility in speech disorders can be assessed both perceptually and instrumentally, but a lack of consensus exists regarding the terminology and related speech measures in both the clinical and scientific fields. Aims:To draw up a more consensual definition of intelligibility and comprehensibility and to define which assessment methods relate to both concepts, as part of their definition. Methods & Procedures: A three-round modified Delphi consensus study was carried out among clinicians, researchers and lecturers engaged in activities in speech disorders.Outcomes & Results: Forty international experts from different fields (mainly clinicians, linguists and computer scientists) participated in the elaboration of a comprehensive definition of intelligibility and comprehensibility and their assessment. While both concepts are linked and contribute to functional human communication, they relate to two different reconstruction levels of the transmitted speech material. Intelligibility refers to the acoustic-phonetic decoding of the utterance, while comprehensibility relates to the reconstruction of the meaning of the message. Consequently, the perceptual assessment of intelligibility requires the use of unpredictable speech material (pseudo-words, minimal word pairs, unpredictable sentences), whereas comprehensibility assessment is meaning and context related and entails more functional speech stimuli and tasks. Conclusion & Implications:This consensus study provides the scientific and clinical communities with a better understanding of intelligibility and comprehensibility. A comprehensive definition was drafted, including specifications regarding the tasks that best fit their assessment. The outcome has implications for both clinical practice and scientific research, as the disambiguation improves communication between professionals and thereby increases the efficiency of patient assessment and care and benefits the progress of research as well as research translation.

show abstract

“…An inventory of these terms indicates no less than 36 variants that have been used in the last 200 years (Leonard, 2020). A consensus will have to be reached on the terminology used (Cunningham, Kwok, Turkstra, and Oram Cardy, 2019), as there are both conceptual and methodological differences between the two diagnostic labels used for apparently similar clinical manifestations. The cultural areas where speech therapy intervention has a more recent history could adhere to the recommendations made by the multidisciplinary team and CATALISE consortium (Bishop et al 2017).…”

Section: Language Disorders Of Unspecified Origin -An Overviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Specific Language Impairment and Language Delay: an Analysis of Developmental Language Disorder Characteristics in a Group of Romanian Children

TUDOREAN¹,

Gherguț²

2020

JRTDD

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Although specific language impairment (SLI) or developmental language disorder (DLD) and language delay (LD) are fairly well documented language disorders, the specificity for Romanian children has not been clearly highlighted.Objectives: This study aims to identify the common and differential elements of the DLD (SLI) and LD through a quantitative and qualitative analysis. Methods: We considered two groups of children: one diagnosed with DLD (n = 67) and another with LD (n = 57), aged 3 to 12 years (M age = 5 years 8 months). Tests for establishing the language psychological age and the active and passive vocabulary, recording the phonetic inventory and language sample analysis (LSA) for qualitative observations were used as analysis tools. These instruments proved to be useful in establishing the specificity of each disorder and formulating the prognosis. Results: A statistical analysis (Student's t test) was conducted in order to compare the children in LD and DLD groups. The data obtained from this analysis along with LSA indicate that the language skills differ between the two groups in the following aspects: lexical, pragmatic, semantic, syntactic, morphological and phonological. Significant differences (p < .05) occur for the start of speech therapy age, phonological disorder, passive vocabulary and language psychological age. Results for active vocabulary did not indicate a statistical difference between LD and DLD children. Conclusions: The characteristics of DLD and LD were noted in this study. These language disorders have specific markers, which imply differentiated measures, from the diagnosis phase to the construction of the remediation plan. The study is a prospective one, this issue being the subject for further exhaustive approaches.

show abstract

Establishing consensus among community clinicians on how to categorize and define preschoolers’ speech and language impairments at assessment

Cited by 9 publications

References 19 publications

Criteria for creating new standard reading passages for the assessment of speech and voice: A Delphi consensus study

Criteria for creating new standard reading passages for the assessment of speech and voice: A Delphi consensus study

Intelligibility and comprehensibility: A Delphi consensus study

Specific Language Impairment and Language Delay: an Analysis of Developmental Language Disorder Characteristics in a Group of Romanian Children

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About