NCBI Bookshelf. A service of the National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health.
This publication is provided for historical reference only and the information may be out of date.
Structured Abstract
Objectives:
Approximately 42 million Americans have some type of communication disorder, costing the nation $30 billion to $154 billion for lost productivity, special education, and medical care annually. The quality of the numerous evaluation procedures and instruments for clinical decisionmaking about language, speech, or voice disorders influences decisions about access to services and funding (e.g., special education services, Social Security disability income). The RTI-University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Evidence-based Practice Center conducted a systematic review of the literature to address two key questions about evaluating and diagnosing speech and language disorders in adults and children of particular concern to the Social Security Administration in making disability eligibility determinations: (1) What instruments have demonstrated reliability, validity, and normative data? (2) Do these instruments have predictive validity for an individual's communicative impairment, performance, or both?
Search Strategy:
We conducted detailed searches of the English-language literature from 1966 to October 2000 using the MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycLIT®, ERIC, Health and Psychosocial Instruments, and Cochrane Collaboration databases.
Selection Criteria:
We included all English-language research on 18 instruments for children and adults in which investigators evaluated the instrument's reliability, validity, or ability to predict future communicative impairment or functioning. Excluded were articles reporting the efficacy or effectiveness of specific interventions that did not provide information on the key questions, articles providing normative data from non-US populations, and all gray literature (i.e., literature not from peer-reviewed sources) except instrument manuals. An independent expert panel knowledgeable in language, speech, or voice disorders had identified the instruments we reviewed.
Data Collection and Analysis:
We selected studies from among 1,238 citations using a process of duplicate, independent review of titles, abstracts, and, where necessary, full papers. We abstracted data on 92 articles or manuals, using single abstraction with subsequent review by clinical and methodological experts; reviewers also completed quality rating forms. Criteria used to evaluate reliability, validity, and other data reflect widely accepted or known standards for the psychometric properties of such instruments.
Main Results:
Among language disorder instruments, one (of three) for adults and four (of eight) for children met or nearly met our evaluation criteria for reliability and validity; two child-specific instruments provided data for subpopulations. Although these five instruments had norms, only the child-specific instruments provided nationally representative data. Two (of three) instruments for voice disorders met evaluation criteria; speech disorder instruments did not. Only four studies gave information on prediction of future communicative functioning and impairment.
Conclusions:
Reliability and validity data for the majority of instruments rarely came from peer-reviewed literature; instrument manuals yielded most such data. Some manuals provided comprehensive data from well-conducted standardization studies; most did not. Because normative data were usually not derived from nationally representative samples, generalizing results beyond the populations studied was difficult. Sample size and representativeness problems limited the predictive validity studies. Overall, evidence about diagnostic or predictive properties of instruments addressing language, speech, and voice disorders is weak and incomplete at this time. The sparse evidence base suggests a substantial methodologic, clinical, and policymaking research agenda.
Contents
- Preface
- Summary
- 1. Introduction
- 2. Methodology
- Key Questions, Causal Pathway, and Selected Instruments
- Selection of Instruments
- Literature Search
- Gray Literature Search
- Literature Retrieval
- Results of Article Selection
- Data Abstraction Process
- Quality and Strength of Evidence Evaluation
- Grading the Strength of Available Evidence
- Development of Evidence Tables
- Supplemental Analysis -- Usability Analysis
- Peer Review Process
- Methods Appendix: Explanation of Reliability and Validity
- 3. Results
- Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination, 2nd Edition
- Porch Index of Communicative Ability
- Western Aphasia Battery, 2nd Edition (WAB)
- Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, 3rd Edition (English)
- Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, 3rd Edition (Spanish)
- Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-Preschool
- Test of Language Development-Primary, 3rd Edition
- Test of Language Development-Intermediate, 3rd Edition
- Preschool Language Scale, 3rd Edition (English)
- Preschool Language Scale, 3rd Edition (Spanish)
- Test of Pragmatic Language
- Assessment of Intelligibility of Dysarthric Speech
- Dysarthria Examination Battery
- Stuttering Severity Instrument for Children and Adults, 3rd Edition
- Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation, 2nd Edition
- GRBAS (Grade, Rough, Breathy, Asthenic, Strain) Scale
- Multi-Dimensional Voice Program
- Voice Handicap Index
- Supplemental Analyses -- Usability Analysis
- 4. Conclusions
- 5. Future Research Directions
- Glossary for Evidence Tables
- Evidence Tables
- Appendix A: Acknowledgments
- Appendix B: Technical Expert Advisory Group (TEAG)
- Appendix C: Peer Review
- Appendix D: Methodology
- References
Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.1 Contract No. 290-97-0011. Prepared by: Research Triangle Institute Evidence-based Practice Center at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Suggested citation:
Biddle A, Watson L, Hooper C, et al. Criteria for Determining Disability in Speech-Language Disorders. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 52 (Prepared by the University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No 290-97-0011). AHRQ Publication No. 02-E010. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. January 2002.
This report may be used, in whole or in part, as the basis for development of clinical practice guidelines and other quality enhancement tools, or a basis for reimbursement and coverage policies. AHRQ or U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorsement of such derivative products may not be stated or implied.
AHRQ is the lead Federal agency charged with supporting research designed to improve the quality of health care, reduce its cost, address patient safety and medical errors, and broaden access to essential services. AHRQ sponsors and conducts research that provides evidence-based information on health care outcomes; quality; and cost, use, and access. The information helps health care decisionmakers -- patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers -- make more informed decisions and improve the quality of health care services.
The authors of this report are responsible for its content. Statements in the report should not be construed as endorsement by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality or the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services of a particular drug, device, test, treatment, or other clinical service.
- 1
2101 East Jefferson Street, Rockville, MC 20852. www
.ahrq.gov
- Identifying speech and language delays in children.[Pediatr Nurs. 1984]Identifying speech and language delays in children.Goldberg R. Pediatr Nurs. 1984 Jul-Aug; 10(4):252-9.
- Which three year olds need speech therapy? Uses of the Levett-Muir language screening test.[Health Visit. 1983]Which three year olds need speech therapy? Uses of the Levett-Muir language screening test.Levett L, Muir J. Health Visit. 1983 Dec; 56(12):454-6.
- Review Determining the need for speech-language intervention services for infants and toddlers.[Clin Commun Disord. 1992]Review Determining the need for speech-language intervention services for infants and toddlers.Cirrin FM, Magnusson DL. Clin Commun Disord. 1992 Summer; 2(3):1-12.
- Improving language assessment in minority children.[ASHA. 1983]Improving language assessment in minority children.Vaughn-Cooke FB. ASHA. 1983 Sep; 25(9):29-34.
- Review Standardised speech-language tests and students with intellectual disability: a review of normative data.[J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2006]Review Standardised speech-language tests and students with intellectual disability: a review of normative data.Cascella PW. J Intellect Dev Disabil. 2006 Jun; 31(2):120-4.
- Criteria for Determining Disability in Speech-Language DisordersCriteria for Determining Disability in Speech-Language Disorders
Your browsing activity is empty.
Activity recording is turned off.
See more...