Concurrent Validity of the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test-Second Edition at Age 3: Comparison With Four Diagnostic Measures.
Clicks: 375
ID: 39715
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This
article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score —
reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
Reader Engagement
Star Article
71.2
/100
375 views
257 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
StarRanked #8 of 18 articles by views in Language, speech, and hearing services in schools
Most read
Least read
Bar heights use a square-root scale.
Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet mintedCreate a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.
5
SUSD
one-off · no wallet required
Abstract
Purpose The aim of this study was to examine the concurrent validity of the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test-Second Edition (Fluharty-2; Fluharty, 2001) for mass screenings of language at age 3 years. Method Participants were sixty-two 3-year-old children, 31 who had failed and 31 who had passed the Fluharty-2. Performance on the screening was compared to 4 diagnostic measures: Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test-Preschool, Second Edition; mean length of utterance in morphemes (MLU), finite verb morphology composite, and Index of Productive Syntax (IPSyn). Results Children who failed the Fluharty-2 scored significantly lower on each of the diagnostic measures than children who passed the Fluharty-2, but the effect size for MLU was small. Scores on the Fluharty-2 were significantly correlated with scores on the diagnostic measures. There was significant agreement for pass/fail decisions between the Fluharty-2 and diagnostic measures only for IPSyn. However, even for the IPSyn, the agreement rate for passing was only moderate (80%) and the agreement rate for failing was only fair (68%). Conclusion The Fluharty-2 showed limited agreement for pass/fail decisions with all 4 of the diagnostic measures. There was reason to question the validity of 2 of the diagnostic measures-Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test-Preschool, Second Edition and MLU-for diagnosing language impairment in 3-year-old children. However, there were no such concerns about finite verb morphology composite or IPSyn to account for the limited agreement. Thus, it seems reasonable to conclude that the Fluharty-2 would refer both too few at-risk children and too many nonrisk children for a follow-up assessment, making it an inefficient tool for mass screenings of language.
| Reference Key |
eisenberg2019concurrentlanguage
Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using
SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
|
|---|---|
| Authors | Eisenberg, Sarita;Victorino, Kristen;Murray, Sarah; |
| Journal | Language, speech, and hearing services in schools |
| Year | 2019 |
| DOI |
10.1044/2019_LSHSS-18-0099
|
| URL | |
| Keywords | Keywords not found |
Citations
No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org
Comments
No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.