Identifying and describing developmental language disorder in children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In 2016-17 an important consensus was established regarding the use of the diagnostic label 'developmental language disorder' (DLD) to describe children with a persistent language problem having a functional impact on communication or learning and in the absence of any other biomedical condition. Despite this consensus, past research has revealed ongoing uncertainty regarding when to use the DLD label among speech-language pathologists (SLPs). AIMS: In response to this uncertainty, a survey of SLPs was conducted aimed at investigating which types of clinical language profiles, and specific assessment results, were viewed as warranting the diagnostic label DLD. METHODS & PROCEDURES: SLPs were presented with 10 childhood language profiles and assessment results. Participants reviewed each case and described if they felt a diagnosis of DLD was warranted, which presented symptoms were consistent/inconsistent with DLD and if further information/testing was desired. Additionally, participants provided details regarding their personal diagnostic processes. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Results indicated a general consensus among SLPs as to when the DLD label should be applied. However, free-text responses demonstrated considerable variation between clinicians regarding symptoms of importance, points of contention/confusion in language profiles and minimal assessment results viewed as necessary in the diagnostic process. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: This detailed look at the assessment/diagnostic process for DLD provides valuable insight into how to build further practice consistency in the provision of the diagnostic label DLD, especially in cases of complex language profiles and assessment results. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject The label DLD should be used as a diagnostic label to describe children with persistent language problems having a functional impact on communication or learning and in the absence of any biomedical condition. However, in current clinical practice, actual use of the label is inconsistent and SLPs face a number of challenges in diagnosing DLD. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge This investigation provides clarity regarding which complexities in paediatric language profiles are most challenging for SLPs when determining if a child does/does not have DLD. Additionally, details regarding current assessment beliefs and practices are explored. What are the practical and clinical implications of this work? By providing a detailed look at the diagnostic processes of practising SLPs, valuable insight is provided into how to build further practice consistency and confidence in the provision of the diagnostic label DLD, especially in cases of complex language profiles and assessment results.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".