Our multidisciplinary technical expert advisory group (TEAG) was composed of 10 individuals (Table B.1) who provided expertise in: (1) clinical areas including speech, language, and voice disorders, neurology and neuropsychology (in both children and adults), otolaryngology, and developmental pediatrics; (2) professional societies and organizations; (3) development, validation, and use of psychometric tests and other instruments; and (4) likely users of this evidence report such as the Social Security Administration (SSA) and other entities interested in the appropriate evaluation of speech and learning disorders. Nominations for potential TEAG members were made by colleagues in the Division of Speech and Hearing Sciences at the University of North Carolina (UNC) at Chapel Hill, the SSA liaison to the project, and the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); other names emerged from a basic search of the literature.

Staff of the RTI-UNC Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) contacted nominees by telephone and electronic mail between June and August 2000, described the project and the types of activities and responsibilities that a TEAG member would undertake during the project period, gave an estimate of the time required to complete activities, and inquired as to the person's interest and willingness to serve on the TEAG. Six nominees declined to participate, citing lack of time to complete the required tasks or inability to attend the one-day meeting; all expressed interest and support for the project. Names of other experts were solicited from individuals who declined to participate; ultimately, three TEAG members were recruited through this process.

TEAG responsibilites included: (1) attendance at a one-day meeting to assist in the development or modification of the key clinical questions and causal pathway and the selection and prioritization of instruments for inclusion in the evidence review; (2) attendance at conference calls to discuss project progress and to address difficulties encountered by the RTI-UNC EPC team; and (3) general availability by telephone and electronic mail to address questions as they arose. TEAG members each received a $1000 honorarium for their participation. Additionally, all TEAG members were invited to serve as peer reviewers of the draft evidence report; TEAG members did not receive compensation for their peer review.