Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Language Screening: How Far Have We Come?

  • Communication Disorders (J Sigafoos, Section Editor)
  • Published:
Current Developmental Disorders Reports Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose of Review

A brief literature review of the past 5 years was conducted to provide updated information regarding language screening at all ages. Included will be information regarding classification accuracy of commercially available tools, as well as current methods reported in recent literature for early intervention, preschool, school age, adolescent, and adult populations.

Recent Findings

Based on a brief literature review of the past 5 years, there seem to be very little novel or important new findings in this area.

Summary

To date, there is no gold standard for language screening at any age. While there are some standardized screening tools, these screeners must be used with caution as they may produce false negative results, thereby negating their efficacy. Currently, adolescents stand out as an at-risk group due to the lack of age-appropriate, standardized screening measures addressing this population.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. •• Hendricks AE, Adlof SM, Alonzo CN, Fox AB, Hogan TP. Identifying children at risk for developmental language disorder using a brief, whole-classroom screen. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2019;62:896–908. https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0093 This study considers the potential of whole classroom language screening.

  2. Davis GN, Lindo EJ, Compton DL. Children at risk for reading failure: constructing an early screening measure. Teach Except Child. 2007;39(5):32–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. • Larson A. Language screening for infants and toddlers: a literature review of four commercially available tools. Commun Disord Q. 2016;38(1):3–12 A literature review of four tools for use with infants and toddlers.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. U.S. Census Bureau. Quick facts. 2017. Available from: https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045219.

  5. Fernald A, Marchman V, Weisleder A. SES differences in language processing skills and vocabulary are evident at 18 months. Dev Sci. 2013;16(2):234–48.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Morgan PL, Farkas G, Hillemeir MM, Mattison R, Maczuga S, Li H, et al. Minorities are disproportionately underrepresented in special education: longitudinal evidence across five disability conditions. Educ Res. 2015;44(5):278–92.

  7. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Section 303.303 Referral Procedures. 2015. Retrieved from: https://sites.ed.gov/idea/regs/c/d/303.303.

  8. Accardo PJ, Capute AJ. The Capute Scale: Cognitive Adaptive Test/Clinical Linguistic & Auditory Milestone scale (CAT/CLAMS). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Coplan J. Early Language Milestone Scale-second edition (ELM Scale-2). Austin, TX: PRO-ED; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Rescorla L. The language development survey: a screening tool for delayed language in toddlers. J Speech Hear Disord. 1989;54:587–99.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Fenson L, Petick S, Renda C, Cox JL, Dale PS, Resnick JS. Short-form versions of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories. Appl Psycholinguist. 2000;2:95–116.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. • Moodie S, Daneri P, Goldhagen S, Halle T, Green K, LaMonte L. Early childhood developmental screening: A compendium of measures for children ages birth to five (OPRE Report 201411). 2014. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Research and Evaluation, Administration for Children and Families, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. This compendium highlights areas where the early childhood assessment field is lacking information regarding reliability of available screening tools.

  13. •• Virginia Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Student Services. Speech-language pathology services in schools: guidelines for best practice. 2018. Available from: http://www.doe.virginia.gov/special_ed/disabilities/speech_language_impairment/slp-guidelines-2018.pdf. This document provides guidelines for best practices for SLPs in the public school setting.

  14. • Wallace IF, Berkman ND, Watson LR, Coyne-Beasley T, Wood CT, Cullen K, et al. Screening for speech and language delay in children 5 years old and younger: a systematic review. Peds. 2015;136:3448 This is a systematic review of screening instruments that accurately identify language impairment/delays/disorders.

  15. Squires J, Bricker D, Twombly E. Ages & Stages Questionnaires®: Social-Emotional, Second Edition (ASQ®:SE-2): a parent-completed child monitoring system for social-emotional behaviors. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.; 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Wetherby A, Prizant B. The infant toddler checklist from the communication and symbolic behavior scales. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Fenson L, Marchman VA, Thal DJ, Dale PS, Reznick JS, Bates E. MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories: user's guide and technical manual. 2nd ed. Baltimore, MD: Brookes; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  18. Fluharty NB. Fluharty preschool speech and language screening test. Allen, TX: DLM Teaching Resources; 1978.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Bliss LS, Allen DV. Screening kit of language development: a preschool language screening instrument. J Commun Disord. 1986;17(2):133–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/0021-9924(84)90019-4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. •• Eisenberg S, Victorino K, Murray S. Concurrent validity of the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test-Second Edition at Age 3: comparison with four diagnostic measures. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2019;50:673–82 This study examines the concurrent validity of the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test for 3-year-old children.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  21. Dawson J, Eyer JA, Fonkalsrud J. Structured photographic expressive language test—preschool: second edition. DeKalb, IL: Janelle Publications; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Adlof S, Scoggins J, Brazendale A, Babb S, Petscher Y. Identifying children at risk for language impairment or dyslexia with group-administered measures. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2017;60:3507–22.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  23. Williams KT. Group reading assessment and diagnostic evaluation. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  24. Mather N, Hammill D, Allen EA, Roberts R. Test of silent word reading fluency. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Bishop DVM. Test for reception of grammar - version 2 (TROG-2). London: Pearson; 2003.

  26. American Speech Hearing Association. Available from: https://www.asha.org/PRPSpecificTopic.aspx?folderid=8589935327&section=Assessment

  27. Prather E, Van Ausal BS, Wallace EM. Screening test of adolescent language (STAL). Terrance CA: Western Psychological Services; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  28. Prather E, Brenner A, Hughes K. A mini speech language test for adolescents. Lang Speech Hear Sch. 1981;12:67–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Wiig EH, Semel E, Secord WA. Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals- fifth edition: screening test (CELF-5 screening test). New York: Pearson; 2013.

    Google Scholar 

  30. American Speech Language Association. Practice portal: aphasia screening. Available from: https://www.asha.org/PRPSpecificTopic.aspx?folderid=8589934663&section=Assessment#Screening

  31. Hachioui HE, Visch-Brink EG, de Lau LML, van de Sandt-Koenderman MW, Nouwens F, Koudstaal PJ, et al. Screening test for aphasia in patients with stroke: a systematic review. J Neurol. 2007;264:211–20.

  32. Enderby PM, Wood VA, Wade DT, Hewer RL. The Frenchay aphasia screening test: a short, simple test for aphasia appropriate for non-specialists. Int Rehabil Med. 1987;8:166–70.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Flamand-Roze C, Falissard B, Roze E, Maintigneur L, Beziz J, Chacon A, et al. Validation of a new language screening tool for patients with acute stroke: the Language Screening Test (LAST). Stroke. 2011;42:1224–0.

  34. Nakase-Thompson R, Manning E, Sherer M, Yablon SA, Gontkovsky SL, Vickery C. Brief assessment of severe language impairments: initial validation of the Mississippi aphasia screening test. Brain Inj. 2005;19(9):685–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Doesborgh SJ, van de Sandt-Koenderman WM, Dipple DW, van Harskamp F, Koudstaal PJ, Visch-Brink EG. Linguistic deficits in the acute phase of stroke. J Neurol. 2003;250:977–82.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Syder D. Sheffield screening test for acquired aphasia. Windson: NFER Nelson; 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Lopes M, Dozzi Brucki SM, Giampaoli V, Mansur LL. Semantic verbal fluency test in dementia: preliminary retrospective analysis. Dement Neuropsychol. 2009;3(4):315–20.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  38. Thommessen B, Thoresen GE, Bautz-Holter E, Laake K. Screening by nurses for aphasia in stroke –the Ullevaal Aphasia Screening (UAS) test. Disabil Rehabil. 1999;21:110–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Crary MA, Haak NJ, Malinsky AE. Preliminary psychometric evaluation on an acute aphasia screening protocol. Aphasiology. 1989;3:611–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Biniek R, Huger W, Glindemann R, Willmes K, Klumm H. The Aachen aphasia bedside test-criteria for validity of psychologic tests. Nervenarztn. 1992;63:473–9.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Kertesz A. Western aphasia battery revised. San Antonio: Harcourt Assessment; 2006.

    Google Scholar 

  42. DeRenzi E, Vignolog LA. The token test: a sensitive test to detect receptive disturbances in aphasics. Brain. 1962;85:665–78.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. American Speech and Hearing Association. Scope of practice in speech language pathology. 2020. Available from https://www.asha.org/policy/sp2016-00343/

  44. Demeyere N, Riddoch MJ, Slavkova ED, Bickerton WL, Humphreys GW. The Oxford Cognitive Screen (OCS): validation of a stroke-specific short cognitive screening tool. Psychol Assess. 2015;27:883–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Berit A, Dehlin O. The clock drawing test. Age Aging. 1998;27:399–403.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  46. Teng EL, Chui HC. The Modified Mini-Mental State (3MS) examination. J Clin Psychiatry. 1987;8:314–8.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Nasreddine ZS, Phillips NA, Bedirian V, et al. The Montreal Cognitive Assessment, MoCA: a brief screening tool for mild cognitive impairment. J Am Geriatr Soc. 2005;53(4):695–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Barnay JL, Wauquiez G, Rousseaux M, Bonnin-Koag HY, Dischler F, De Boissezon X, et al. Presentation of the cognitive assessment scale for stroke patient (CASP). Ann Phys Rehabil Med. 2012;55.

  49. Niven E, Newton J, Foley J, Colville S, Swingler R, Chandran S, et al. Validation of the Edinburgh Cognitive and Behavioural Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis Screen (ECAS): a cognitive tool for motor disorders. Amyotroph Lateral Scler Frontotemporal Degener. 2015;16:172–9.

  50. •• Macoir J, Fossard M, Lefbvre L, Monetta L, Renard A, Tran T, et al. Detection test for language impairments in adults and the aged-a new screening test for language impairment associated with neurodegenerative diseases: validation and normative data. Am J Alzheimer’s Dis Other Dementias. 2017;32(7):382–92 This study provides validation and standardization of a new language screening test for neurodegenerative disease.

  51. Enderby PM, Wood VA, Wade DT, Hewer RL. The Frenchay aphasia screening test: a short, simple test for aphasia appropriate for non-specialists. Int Rehabil Med. 2009;8(4):166–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  52. Nakase-Thompson R, Mannin GE, Shere M, Yablon SA, Gontkovsky SL, Vickery C. Brief assessment of severe language impairments: initial validation of the Mississippi aphasia screening test. Brain Inj. 2005;19(9):685–91.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  53. Tsoi KK, Chang JYC, Hirai HW, Wond SYS, Kwok TCY. Cognitive tests to detect dementia: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med. 2015;175(9):1450–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Borson S, Scanlan J, Brush M, Vitaliano P, Dokmak A. The Mini-Cog: a cognitive “vital signs” measure for dementia screening in multi-lingual elderly. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2000;15(11):1021–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  55. Mioshi E, Dawson K, Mitchell J, Arnold R, Hodges JR. The Addenbrooke’s Cognitive Examination Revised (ACE-R): a brief cognitive test battery for dementia screening. Int J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2006;21(11):1078–85.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  56. Blanton DJ, Dagenais PA. Comparison of language skills of adjudicated and adjudicated adolescent males and females. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2007;34(4):309–14.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Statten H, Klackenberg-Larsson I. Early language and intelligence development and their relationship to future criminal behavior. J Abnorm Psychol. 1993;103(3):369–78.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of College of Health and Behavioral Studies, James Madison University, 800 South Main Street, Harrisonburg, VA, 22807, USA

    Marsha S. Longerbeam & Linda M. Freeman

Authors
  1. Marsha S. Longerbeam
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Linda M. Freeman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Marsha S. Longerbeam.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Communication Disorders

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Longerbeam, M.S., Freeman, L.M. Language Screening: How Far Have We Come?. Curr Dev Disord Rep 7, 116–123 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-020-00198-7

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474-020-00198-7

Keywords

Search

Navigation