Ow the child rather than universal screening. Screening of a whole population has the potential advantage that it can identify a child whose difficulties might otherwise go undetected. However, as emphasised in the classic text by Wilson and Jungner [33], any screening program must beware of over-identification of problems, which can lead to resources being diverted to cases that do not need them. Even where an instrument has good sensitivity and specificity, it may have weak positive predictive value (percentage of those identified who have problems) in the general population if the condition that is screened for is relatively uncommon [34]. Although screening has been introduced in some places, there is concern that universal screening for language impairment is not advisable in toddlers, because early language delay often resolves and currently available tests lack adequate sensitivity and specificity for predicting longer-term problems [35] (see also statement 3). The most recent US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on this topic stated that there was insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of screening for speech and language delay and disorders in children aged 5 years and under [36], though they qualified this recommendation by stating it applied to asymptomatic children where there was no parental or clinical concern. 2. Language impairments may go undetected. Referral for language BMS-986020MedChemExpress BMS-986020 assessment is recommended for children who present with behavioural or psychiatric difficulties, and for children with poor reading comprehension or listening difficulties. Supplementary comment: The high prevalence of unsuspected language impairments in these populations motivates this recommendation [37,38,39,40]. 3. Many late talkers (children with limited expressive vocabulary at 18?4 months) catch up without any special help. Research to date has shown it is difficult to predict which children will go on to have longer-term problems. Children at greatest risk of persisting problems are late-talkers with poor language comprehension, poor use of gesture, and/or a family history of language impairment. TAK-385MedChemExpress TAK-385 Nevertheless, even with these indicators, prediction of outcomes for individual children is unreliable, and except where problems are severe (as in item 4). Therefore reassessment after six months is recommended in our current state of knowledge. Supplementary comment: The desirability of early intervention is often taken as a given, but many late-talking toddlers catch up without special help [41], and there are disadvantages of intervening with children who would outgrow their problems [42,43]. In addition, some children who have language difficulties at 4 to 5 years of age were not late talkers [41,44,45]. 4. Between 1 and 2 years of age, the following features are indicative of atypical development in speech, language or communication: (a) No babbling (b) Not responding to speech and/or sounds; (c) Minimal or no attempts to communicate Children showing any of these features should be referred for expert assessment to determine whether there is evidence of hearing loss, autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability. Supplementary comment: This statement and statements 5? are based on Visser-Bochane et al [30], who described these as ‘red flag’ behaviours that their Delphi panel regarded as definitely atypical at this age. Note that these items describe a consensus view of clinicians, rather than empirically validate.Ow the child rather than universal screening. Screening of a whole population has the potential advantage that it can identify a child whose difficulties might otherwise go undetected. However, as emphasised in the classic text by Wilson and Jungner [33], any screening program must beware of over-identification of problems, which can lead to resources being diverted to cases that do not need them. Even where an instrument has good sensitivity and specificity, it may have weak positive predictive value (percentage of those identified who have problems) in the general population if the condition that is screened for is relatively uncommon [34]. Although screening has been introduced in some places, there is concern that universal screening for language impairment is not advisable in toddlers, because early language delay often resolves and currently available tests lack adequate sensitivity and specificity for predicting longer-term problems [35] (see also statement 3). The most recent US Preventive Services Task Force recommendation on this topic stated that there was insufficient evidence to assess the benefits and harms of screening for speech and language delay and disorders in children aged 5 years and under [36], though they qualified this recommendation by stating it applied to asymptomatic children where there was no parental or clinical concern. 2. Language impairments may go undetected. Referral for language assessment is recommended for children who present with behavioural or psychiatric difficulties, and for children with poor reading comprehension or listening difficulties. Supplementary comment: The high prevalence of unsuspected language impairments in these populations motivates this recommendation [37,38,39,40]. 3. Many late talkers (children with limited expressive vocabulary at 18?4 months) catch up without any special help. Research to date has shown it is difficult to predict which children will go on to have longer-term problems. Children at greatest risk of persisting problems are late-talkers with poor language comprehension, poor use of gesture, and/or a family history of language impairment. Nevertheless, even with these indicators, prediction of outcomes for individual children is unreliable, and except where problems are severe (as in item 4). Therefore reassessment after six months is recommended in our current state of knowledge. Supplementary comment: The desirability of early intervention is often taken as a given, but many late-talking toddlers catch up without special help [41], and there are disadvantages of intervening with children who would outgrow their problems [42,43]. In addition, some children who have language difficulties at 4 to 5 years of age were not late talkers [41,44,45]. 4. Between 1 and 2 years of age, the following features are indicative of atypical development in speech, language or communication: (a) No babbling (b) Not responding to speech and/or sounds; (c) Minimal or no attempts to communicate Children showing any of these features should be referred for expert assessment to determine whether there is evidence of hearing loss, autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability. Supplementary comment: This statement and statements 5? are based on Visser-Bochane et al [30], who described these as ‘red flag’ behaviours that their Delphi panel regarded as definitely atypical at this age. Note that these items describe a consensus view of clinicians, rather than empirically validate.
