Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2022 Jun 22:10:866598.
doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2022.866598. eCollection 2022.

Development and Validation of a Language Screening for Implementation in Pre-School Settings

Affiliations

Development and Validation of a Language Screening for Implementation in Pre-School Settings

Daniel Holzinger et al. Front Public Health. .

Abstract

Background: To prevent or mitigate long-lasting learning problems and emotional, behavioral, and social-adaption difficulties associated with language disorders, age-appropriate German language competence at school entry level is essential. Therefore, universal screening of children in their penultimate year of pre-school has been established in Upper Austria. So far, the screenings administered by speech and language pathologists to identify risk of language disorder (LD) were not based on standardized materials.

Objective: To develop a screening instrument to identify increased risk of LD and to evaluate its validity and feasibility within the constraints of regular universal pre-school language screening.

Design: A two-component screening instrument including direct assessment of expressive and receptive grammar was used in a sample of 374 children with German as their dominant language attending a public pre-school in their penultimate year (age 4-5 ½ years) in the state of Upper Austria. Assessment by use of standardized German language tests including a variety of linguistic domains was considered reference standard for diagnosing LD. Feasibility was assessed by a self-developed questionnaire completed by the administrators of the screening.

Results: The combination of the expressive and receptive grammar scales demonstrated excellent accuracy (area under the curve score 0.928). A cut-off of 18 resulted in a failing rate of 21.8% and showed good sensitivity (84.2%) and specificity (85.3%). Acceptance by children and testers, time-economy and sustainability of the screening were mostly rated as high.

Keywords: LOGiK-S; feasibility; language disorder; language screening; pre-school; validity.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Distribution of the screening scales.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Bishop D Snowling MJ Thompson PA Greenhalgh T the CATALISE-2 consortium . Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology. J Child Psychol Psychiatry Allied Disciplines. (2017) 58:1068–80. 10.1111/jcpp.12721 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Norbury CF, Vamvakas G, Gooch D, Baird G, Charman T, Simonoff E, et al. . Language growth in children with heterogeneous language disorders: a population study. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. (2017) 58:1092–105. 10.1111/jcpp.12793 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tomblin JB, Smith E, Zhang X. Epidemiology of specific language impairment: prenatal and perinatal risk factors. J Commun Disord. (1997) 30:325–44. 10.1016/S0021-9924(97)00015-4 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Leonard LB. Children with specific language impairment and their contribution to the study of language development. J Child Lang. (2014) 41 (Suppl. 1):38–47. 10.1017/S0305000914000130 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Thordardottir E. Proposed diagnostic procedures for use in bilingual and cross-linguistic contexts. In: Armon-Lotem S, Jong J, Meir N, editors. Assessing Multilingual Children: Multilingual Matters. (2015). p. 331–58.

Publication types