Differentiating Cantonese-Speaking Preschool Children with and without SLI Using MLU and Lexical Diversity (D)

Purpose: In this study, the authors examined the diagnostic accuracy of a composite clinical assessment measure based on mean length of utterance (MLU), lexical diversity (D), and age (Klee, Stokes, Wong, Fletcher, & Gavin, 2004) in a second, independent sample of 4-year-old Cantonese-speaking c...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Journal of speech, language, and hearing research language, and hearing research, 2010-06, Vol.53 (3), p.794-799
Main Authors: Wong, Anita M.-Y, Klee, Thomas, Stokes, Stephanie F, Fletcher, Paul, Leonard, Laurence B
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Age Factors
Child Language
Child, Preschool
Clinical Diagnosis
Demographic aspects
Diagnostic Tests
Female
Humans
Interpersonal Relations
Language
Language acquisition
Language Disorders - diagnosis
Language Impairments
Language skills
Likelihood Functions
Male
Observations
Play and Playthings
Preschool Children
Sensitivity and Specificity
Sino Tibetan Languages
Speech
Time Factors
Vocabulary
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Purpose: In this study, the authors examined the diagnostic accuracy of a composite clinical assessment measure based on mean length of utterance (MLU), lexical diversity (D), and age (Klee, Stokes, Wong, Fletcher, & Gavin, 2004) in a second, independent sample of 4-year-old Cantonese-speaking children with and without specific language impairment (SLI). Method: The composite measure was calculated from play-based, conversational language samples of 15 children with SLI and 14 children without SLI. Scores were dichotomized and compared to diagnostic outcomes using a reference standard based on clinical judgment supported by test scores. Results: Eleven of 15 children with SLI and 8 of 14 children with typical language skills were correctly classified by the dichotomized composite measure. The measure's sensitivity in this second sample was 73.3% (95% confidence interval [CI] 48%-89%); specificity was 57.1% (95% CI 33%-79%); positive likelihood ratio was 1.71 (95% CI 0.87-3.37); and negative likelihood ratio was 0.47 (95% CI 0.18-1.21). Conclusions: The diagnostic accuracy of the composite measure was substantially lower than in the original study, suggesting that it is unlikely to be informative for clinical use in its present form. The value of replication studies is discussed.
ISSN:1092-4388
1558-9102
DOI:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0195)