scholarly journals Concurrent Validity of the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test–Second Edition at Age 3: Comparison With Four Diagnostic Measures

2019 ◽  
Vol 50 (4) ◽  
pp. 673-682 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sarita Eisenberg ◽  
Kristen Victorino ◽  
Sarah Murray
Keyword(s):  
Screening Test ◽  
Concurrent Validity ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Diagnostic Measures ◽  
Language Screening

Language Screening Test

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1976 ◽  
Vol 58 (6) ◽  
pp. 915-916
Author(s):  
Philip R. Nader
Keyword(s):  
Health Professionals ◽  
Screening Test ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Speech Disorders ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Speech Pathologists ◽  
Language Screening ◽  
Speech And Language Disorders

The article by Schwartz and Murphy1 in the May 1975 issue emphasizes the key position of the pediatrician in recognition of speech and language disorders, as well as the lack of training of health professionals in this important area of development. We would like to call attention to a five-minute screening test appropriate for children 6 months to 6 years of age. The Physician's Developmental Quick Screen for Speech Disorders (PDQ)2 is designed for use by non-speech pathologists.

The Design and Standardization of a Speech and Language Screening Test for Use with Preschool Children

1974 ◽  
Vol 39 (1) ◽  
pp. 75-88 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Buono Fluharty
Keyword(s):  
Preschool Children ◽  
Language Acquisition ◽  
Screening Test ◽  
Generative Grammar ◽  
Test Design ◽  
Developmental Studies ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Language Screening ◽  
Grammar Model

This paper describes the design and preliminary standardization of a speech and language screening test for use with three- to five-year-old children. The test design follows the transformation-generative grammar model and is based on developmental studies of speech and language acquisition.

Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Test

1988 ◽  
Vol 53 (2) ◽  
pp. 168-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Johnny O. Simmons
Keyword(s):  
Preschool Children ◽  
Discriminant Analysis ◽  
Construct Validity ◽  
Internal Consistency ◽  
Screening Test ◽  
Item Difficulty ◽  
Language Test ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Test Items ◽  
Language Screening

The Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test was examined in terms of construct validity. Analysis of the test was based on results of 260 preschool children, aged 3–6. Although age differentiation was moderately demonstrated—as was the need for separate language subtests—results for internal consistency, discriminant analysis, and item difficulty analysis raised questions as to the usefulness and appropriateness of many test items. The test as a whole was not found to be racially biased; however, individual test items may be.

Predicting Preschool Speech/Language Referral-Status with the Lollipop Test and the Cognitive-Language Profile of the Early Screening Profiles

1995 ◽  
Vol 80 (3) ◽  
pp. 1025-1026 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lawrence Eno ◽  
Paula Woehlke
Keyword(s):  
Early Childhood ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Screening Test ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Early Screening ◽  
Referral Status ◽  
Language Screening

603 preschoolers who attended early childhood screenings were administered the Lollipop Test, the Cognitive Language Profile of the Early Screening Profiles, and the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test. Scores from the Lollipop and the Cognitive-Language Profile significantly predicted speech/language referral-status based on Fluharty scores and clinical judgment.

Sensitivity of the Denver Developmental Screening Test in Speech and Language Screening

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1986 ◽  
Vol 78 (6) ◽  
pp. 1075-1078
Author(s):  
Kathleen C. Borowitz ◽  
Frances P. Glascoe
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Screening Test ◽  
Expressive Language ◽  
Receptive Language ◽  
Developmental Screening ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Developmental Problems ◽  
Significant Difference ◽  
Language Screening ◽  
Speech And Language Development

A retrospective study was undertaken to determine whether the Denver Developmental Screening Test (DDST) language sector is a sensitive screen of speech and language development. Seventy-one children between 18 and 66 months of age with suspected developmental problems were referred to screening clinics conducted by a child evaluation team. Each child was screened using the DDST (revised) and another screening measure of speech and language development. Statistically significant differences were found between the DDST language sector and the speech-language screening in identification of expressive language and articulation problems. No significant difference was found with receptive language. The DDST failed to identify more than one half of the children with expressive language and/or articulation problems. These results demonstrate that the DDST may fail to identify children with speech and language impairment. Professionals involved in developmental screening need to be advised of alternative speech and language screening measures.

The Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test

1993 ◽  
Vol 36 (4) ◽  
pp. 738-745 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond A. Sturner ◽  
James H. Heller ◽  
Sandra G. Funk ◽  
Thomas L. Layton
Keyword(s):  
Screening Test ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Language Screening

Preschool Speech and Language Screening

1994 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
pp. 25-36 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raymond A. Sturner ◽  
Thomas L. Layton ◽  
Amy W. Evans ◽  
James H. Heller ◽  
Sandra G. Funk ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Standardized Tests ◽  
Screening Test ◽  
Test Validity ◽  
Screening Tests ◽  
Speech And Language ◽  
Test Selection ◽  
Clinical Indices ◽  
Time Required ◽  
Language Screening

Fifty-one preschool speech-language screening tests were reviewed with regard to criteria crucial to screening test selection: professional time required, comprehensiveness, norms, and reliability/validity. A rationale was given for specific guidelines for each criterion. Twenty-five of the tests met the criterion of requiring 10 minutes or less. Nine of these met the criteria for brevity and comprehensiveness. Only six of the standardized tests reported any data that could be used to calculate clinical indices required to evaluate screening test validity. Of these six, only two provided the kind of data that would permit calculation of all predictive indices.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document