Concurrent Validity of the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test-Second Edition at Age 3: Comparison With Four Diagnostic Measures.
Clicks: 299
ID: 39715
2019
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Improving Quality
0.0
/100
Combines engagement data with AI-assessed academic quality
Reader Engagement
Steady Performance
71.4
/100
291 views
236 readers
Trending
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
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.