Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Screening Tools for Language Disorder

Frontiers in Pediatrics

So, K. K. H., & To, C. K. S. (2022).

Frontiers in Pediatrics, 10, 801220.

This systematic review and meta-analysis investigates the validity and diagnostic accuracy of early language disorder screening tools for children 6 years and younger.

No funding received

From database inception to October 2020

Cross-sectional studies and prospective studies that report screening result data

47

<p>Overall, early language screening tools demonstrate large variability in sensitivity and specificity as follows:</p> <ul> <li>Language ability screening tools showed sensitivity ranging from 0.46 to 1 (median=0.81) and a specificity of 0.45 to 1 (median=0.86).</li> <li>Clinical marker screening tools demonstrated sensitivity ranging from 0.3 to 1 (median=0.71) and a specificity of 0.45 to 1 (median=0.91).</li> <li>Combination language ability and clinical marker screening tools exhibited sensitivity ranging from 0.36 to 1 (median=0.84) and a specificity of 0.81 to 0.96 (median=0.93).</li> <li>Language sampling screening tools displayed sensitivity ranging from 0.59 to 1 (median=0.865) and specificity of 0.67 to 0.92 (median=0.825).</li> </ul> <p>Of the 67 early language screening tools investigated, the following 9 tools demonstrated good concurrent validity accuracy: Nonword Repetition, Speech and Language Pathology Early Screening Instrument, The Hackney Early Language Screening Test, The Language Development Survey, Levett-Muir Language Screening Test, The Grammar and Phonology Screening (GAPS) Test, Tamiz de Problemas de Lenguaje, The Screening Kit of Language Development, and Short Language Measures.</p> <p>The authors note that the included studies used differing definitions of language disorder, showed some risk of bias, and demonstrated heterogeneity. Additional research that considers the harms and benefits of screening is warranted.</p>