■这篇综述旨在全面总结,比较,并评估用于识别发育性语言障碍(DLD)风险的筛选器,一种被低估的常见学习障碍。筛查DLD是一种具有成本效益的方法来识别需要进一步评估的儿童,反过来,提供急需的支持。
■我们在北美确定了15个商用英语DLD筛查者。然后,我们在三个领域的27个方面对每个筛选器进行了表征,包括(A)可访问性信息(缩写,子测试,网站,成本,材料包括,出版年份,考官资格,年龄范围,给药时间,和管理格式),(B)可用性功能(方言兼容性、进度监控功能,可操作的后续指导,团体评估能力,和在线管理可用性),和(c)技术标准(技术手册的可用性,概念定义,分类精度计算中使用的样本量,样本分布,样本收集年份,结果测量,样本基率,截止分数,灵敏度,特异性,正预测值,和阴性预测值)。
■我们从15名筛查人员中的14名(93%)获得了足够的可访问性信息。相比之下,没有一个筛选器(0%)包括全面的可用性功能。十个筛选器(67%)包括一系列分类准确性(70%-100%的灵敏度和68%-90%的特异性)。我们为每个筛选器提供了优势和劣势领域,作为用户的快速参考,并为五个实际场景生成了筛选器建议。
■我们的研究结果展示了一些符合大多数标准的DLD筛选器,并强调了许多需要改进的地方。包括提高分类的准确性,并为确定有DLD风险的儿童澄清后续指导。筛查DLD对于提供及时的早期识别至关重要,干预,和课堂支持,这反过来又促进了学生的成绩。
UNASSIGNED: This
review aims to comprehensively summarize, compare, and evaluate screeners used to identify risk for developmental language disorder (DLD), a common learning disability that is underidentified. Screening for DLD is a cost-effective way to identify children in need of further assessment and, in turn, provides much needed supports.
UNASSIGNED: We identified 15 commercially available English language DLD screeners in North America. We then characterized each screener on 27 aspects in three domains, including (a) accessibility information (acronym, subtest, website, cost, materials included, publish year, examiner qualification, age range, administration time, and administration format), (b) usability features (dialect compatibility, progress monitoring function, actionable follow-up instruction, group assessment capability, and online administration availability), and (c) technical standards (the availability of a technical manual, conceptual definition, the sample size used in classification accuracy calculation, sample distribution, year of sample collection, outcome measure, sample base rate, cutoff score, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value).
UNASSIGNED: We obtained sufficient accessibility information from 14 out of 15 (93%) screeners. In contrast, none of the screeners (0%) included comprehensive usability features. Ten screeners (67%) included a range of classification accuracy (70%-100% sensitivity and 68%-90% specificity). We provided areas of strength and weakness for each screener as a quick reference for users and generated screener recommendations for five practical scenarios.
UNASSIGNED: Our findings presented some DLD screeners that meet most standards and highlight numerous areas for improvement, including improving classification accuracy and clarifying follow-up instructions for children who are identified with DLD risk. Screening for DLD is critical to provide timely early identification, intervention, and classroom support, which in turn facilitates student outcomes.