Screening for Speech and Language Delays and Disorders in Children Age 5 Years or Younger
Berkman, N. D., Wallace, I., et al. (2015).
Rockville (MD): Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, (Evidence Synthesis No. 120 [Prepared by RTI International–University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under Contract No. HHSA-290-2012-00015-I, Task Order No. 2]), 210.
This updated review investigates the effect of speech and language screening on outomes (e.g., speech and language outcomes) in children five years and younger in primary care settings. This systematic review supports a guideline by the US Preventive Services Task Force (Siu et al. 2015); see the Notes on this Article Section below for the full citation.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
<p>The data in this systematic review were also published in:</p><ul> <li>Wallace, I. F., Berkman, N. D., et al. (2015). Screening for Speech and Language Delay in Children 5 Years Old and Younger: A Systematic Review. <em>Pediatrics, 136</em>(2), e448-e462. doi:10.1542/peds.2014-3889</li></ul>
January 1, 2004-July 20, 2014
Randomized controlled trials; cohort studies; systematic reviews
Key Question (KQ) 2a=24 studies; KQ5=13 studies and 1 systematic review; KQ6=5 studies; KQ7=3 studies
"Some treatments for young children identified with speech and language delays and disorders may be effective" (p. iv).
The authors "found no evidence to answer the overarching question of whether screening for speech and language delays or disorders leads to improved speech and language outcomes. However, this should not be interpreted to mean that screening for speech and language delays is not beneficial; rather, we do not know whether there is a benefit because of a lack of evidence to answer this question" (pp. 50-51).
"Our review yields evidence that two parent-rated screening instruments, the [MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI)] and [Language Development Survey (LDS)], can accurately identify children for diagnostic evaluations and interventions and likely can be interpreted with little difficulty in the primary care setting" (p. iv).
