Evaluation of Three Proposed Markers for Language Impairment in English: A Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies Purpose The goal of the study was to determine to what extent 3 proposed markers of language impairment (LI) in English (verb tense, nonword repetition, and sentence repetition) accurately distinguish affected and unaffected English-speaking individuals. Method Electronic databases were searched for diagnostic accuracy studies involving the 3 markers. ... Review Article
Review Article  |   December 01, 2014
Evaluation of Three Proposed Markers for Language Impairment in English: A Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Monika Pawłowska
    The Richard Stockton College of New Jersey, Galloway
  • Disclosure: The author has declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.
    Disclosure: The author has declared that no competing interests existed at the time of publication.×
  • Correspondence to Monika Pawłowska: monika.pawlowska@stockton.edu
  • Editor: Rhea Paul
    Editor: Rhea Paul×
  • Associate Editor: Elizabeth Kay-Raining Bird
    Associate Editor: Elizabeth Kay-Raining Bird×
Article Information
Research Issues, Methods & Evidence-Based Practice / Language Disorders / Language / Review Article
Review Article   |   December 01, 2014
Evaluation of Three Proposed Markers for Language Impairment in English: A Meta-Analysis of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 2014, Vol. 57, 2261-2273. doi:10.1044/2014_JSLHR-L-13-0189
History: Received July 17, 2013 , Revised January 5, 2014 , Accepted August 25, 2014
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, December 2014, Vol. 57, 2261-2273. doi:10.1044/2014_JSLHR-L-13-0189
History: Received July 17, 2013; Revised January 5, 2014; Accepted August 25, 2014
Web of Science® Times Cited: 4

Purpose The goal of the study was to determine to what extent 3 proposed markers of language impairment (LI) in English (verb tense, nonword repetition, and sentence repetition) accurately distinguish affected and unaffected English-speaking individuals.

Method Electronic databases were searched for diagnostic accuracy studies involving the 3 markers. Quality of relevant studies was described. Numbers of true and false positives and negatives were extracted and used to calculate likelihood ratios (LRs).

Results Thirteen studies met the selection criteria. The majority were based on clinically ascertained samples. Pooled LRs and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for tense (LR+) and sentence repetition (LR+ and LR−) were suggestive of presence (LR+) or absence (LR−) of LI. Wide CIs around the value of inconsistency I2 index reduced reliability of pooled values for sentence repetition. High between-study heterogeneity precluded pooling of LR values for tense (LR−) and nonword repetition (LR+ and LR−).

Conclusion The limited evidence available suggests that the proposed markers may be at best suggestive of LI in English. Future research may refine existing marker tasks to increase their accuracy and test the most promising tasks in unselected samples of participants with and without LI.

Acknowledgments
Lindsay Anderson and Brynna Trowbridge assisted with database searches and ratings of study quality. Partial reports were presented at the SLI (Specific Language Impairment) Diagnosis, Prognosis, Intervention conference in Warsaw, Poland, in July 2012, and at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association Convention in Chicago, IL, in November 2013.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access