Current Methods of Evaluating Speech-Language Outcomes for Preschoolers With Communication Disorders: A Scoping Review Using the ICF-CY
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: The purpose of this scoping review was to identify current measures used to evaluate speech-language outcomes for preschoolers with communication disorders within the framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health-Children and Youth Version (ICF-CY; World Health Organization, 2007). Method: The review involved 5 phases outlined by Arksey and O'Malley (2005) and further developed by Levac, Colquhoun, and O'Brien (2010): (a) articulating the research question; (b) identifying relevant studies; (c) selecting studies; (d) charting the data; and (e) collating, summarizing, and reporting the results. The ICF-CY was used to frame the measures included. Results: A total of 214 relevant peer-reviewed publications were included in the review. Most publications used measures to evaluate changes in outcomes for Activities (65%), followed by measures evaluating changes in Body Functions (20%), and finally measures evaluating changes at the level of Participation (15%). There has been a slight increase in the evaluation of Participation-based outcomes in the past 4 years (2012-2015). Conclusion: The review revealed a dearth of measures in the pediatric speech-language literature that address Participation-based outcomes. The authors strongly advocate for the use of Participation-based outcome measures to detect meaningful change in the lives of children and families.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.063 | 0.230 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.009 | 0.009 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.047 | 0.035 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.010 | 0.007 |
| Open science | 0.005 | 0.005 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".