TY - JOUR

T1 - Language delay is not predictable from available risk factors

AU - Wilson, Philip

AU - McQuaige, Fiona

AU - Thompson, Lucy

AU - McConnachie, Alex

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - AIMS: To investigate factors associated with language delay in a cohort of 30-month-old children and determine if identification of language delay requires active contact with families.METHODS: Data were collected at a pilot universal 30-month health contact. Health visitors used a simple two-item language screen. Data were obtained for 315 children; language delay was found in 33. The predictive capacity of 13 variables which could realistically be known before the 30-month contact was analysed.RESULTS: Seven variables were significantly associated with language delay in univariate analysis, but in logistic regression only five of these variables remained significant.CONCLUSION: The presence of one or more risk factors had a sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 45%, but a positive predictive value of only 15%. The presence of one or more of these risk factors thus can not reliably be used to identify language delayed children, nor is it possible to define an "at risk" population because male gender was the only significant demographic factor and it had an unacceptably low specificity (52.5%). It is not possible to predict which children will have language delay at 30 months. Identification of this important ESSENCE disorder requires direct clinical contact with all families.

AB - AIMS: To investigate factors associated with language delay in a cohort of 30-month-old children and determine if identification of language delay requires active contact with families.METHODS: Data were collected at a pilot universal 30-month health contact. Health visitors used a simple two-item language screen. Data were obtained for 315 children; language delay was found in 33. The predictive capacity of 13 variables which could realistically be known before the 30-month contact was analysed.RESULTS: Seven variables were significantly associated with language delay in univariate analysis, but in logistic regression only five of these variables remained significant.CONCLUSION: The presence of one or more risk factors had a sensitivity of 89% and specificity of 45%, but a positive predictive value of only 15%. The presence of one or more of these risk factors thus can not reliably be used to identify language delayed children, nor is it possible to define an "at risk" population because male gender was the only significant demographic factor and it had an unacceptably low specificity (52.5%). It is not possible to predict which children will have language delay at 30 months. Identification of this important ESSENCE disorder requires direct clinical contact with all families.

KW - Child, Preschool

KW - Family Relations

KW - Female

KW - Humans

KW - Language Development Disorders/diagnosis

KW - Male

KW - Prevalence

KW - Prognosis

KW - Proportional Hazards Models

KW - Reproducibility of Results

KW - Risk Factors

KW - Sensitivity and Specificity

KW - Sex Distribution

KW - United Kingdom/epidemiology

U2 - 10.1155/2013/947018

DO - 10.1155/2013/947018

M3 - Journal article

C2 - 23576912

VL - 2013

JO - The Scientific World Journal

JF - The Scientific World Journal

SN - 2356-6140

M1 - 947018

ER -