TY - JOUR
T1 - Diagnosis of developmental language disorder in research studies
AU - Nitido, Hallie
AU - Plante, Elena
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2020, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. All rights reserved.
PY - 2020/8/10
Y1 - 2020/8/10
N2 - Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which researchers in the field of developmental language disorder are utilizing validated methods to diagnose their research participants. Method: We examined 90 research articles published from 2015 to 2019 that included English-speaking participants from the United States who were identified as having a developmental language disorder or specific language impairment. From these articles, we identified the tests and measures used to identify participants and classify them as healthy or impaired. We then consulted the test manuals and the literature to find information on sensitivity and specificity of the test and the evidence-based cut score that maximized identification accuracy. Results: Of the 90 articles examined, 38 (42%) were found to reflect validated diagnostic methods, and 51 (58%) did not. Conclusion: Our results illustrate that validated methods are used less than half of the time even by those who should have a high level of expertise and despite calls for increasing scientific rigor in research practices.
AB - Purpose: The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which researchers in the field of developmental language disorder are utilizing validated methods to diagnose their research participants. Method: We examined 90 research articles published from 2015 to 2019 that included English-speaking participants from the United States who were identified as having a developmental language disorder or specific language impairment. From these articles, we identified the tests and measures used to identify participants and classify them as healthy or impaired. We then consulted the test manuals and the literature to find information on sensitivity and specificity of the test and the evidence-based cut score that maximized identification accuracy. Results: Of the 90 articles examined, 38 (42%) were found to reflect validated diagnostic methods, and 51 (58%) did not. Conclusion: Our results illustrate that validated methods are used less than half of the time even by those who should have a high level of expertise and despite calls for increasing scientific rigor in research practices.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85089358663&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85089358663&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00091
DO - 10.1044/2020_JSLHR-20-00091
M3 - Comment/debate
C2 - 32692602
AN - SCOPUS:85089358663
SN - 1092-4388
VL - 63
SP - 2777
EP - 2788
JO - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
JF - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
IS - 8
ER -