Concurrent validity of the fluharty preschool speech and language screening test–second edition at age 3: Comparison with four diagnostic measures

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

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 (MLUm ), 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 MLUm 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 MLUm—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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)673-682
Number of pages10
JournalLanguage, speech, and hearing services in schools
Volume50
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Oct 2019

Fingerprint

edition
diagnostic
Language
syntax
language
Mass Screening
Screening
Diagnostics
Syntax
performance
Morpheme
Finite Verb
Verb Morphology
Mean Length of Utterance
Expressive Language

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Speech and Hearing
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

@article{64a789665db645a0a8633f3fc5aa1fc0,
title = "Concurrent validity of the fluharty preschool speech and language screening test–second edition at age 3: Comparison with four diagnostic measures",
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 (MLUm ), 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 MLUm 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 MLUm—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.",
author = "Sarita Eisenberg",
year = "2019",
month = "10",
doi = "https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-18-0099",
language = "English",
volume = "50",
pages = "673--682",
journal = "Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools",
issn = "0161-1461",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Concurrent validity of the fluharty preschool speech and language screening test–second edition at age 3

T2 - Comparison with four diagnostic measures

AU - Eisenberg, Sarita

PY - 2019/10

Y1 - 2019/10

N2 - 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 (MLUm ), 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 MLUm 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 MLUm—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.

AB - 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 (MLUm ), 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 MLUm 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 MLUm—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.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85073125958&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-18-0099

DO - https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-18-0099

M3 - Article

C2 - 31419169

VL - 50

SP - 673

EP - 682

JO - Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools

JF - Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools

SN - 0161-1461

IS - 4

ER -