Concurrent Validity of the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test-Second Edition at Age 3: Comparison With Four Diagnostic Measures

Sarita Eisenberg, Kristen Victorino, Sarah Murray

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 - 10 Oct 2019

Fingerprint

Language Tests
edition
diagnostic
syntax
language
Mass Screening
Language
Diagnostics
Screening
Syntax
performance
Mean Length of Utterance
Morpheme

Cite this

@article{a1fea2ceea454f059eb1c57e0dacc0d1,
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 and Kristen Victorino and Sarah Murray",
year = "2019",
month = "10",
day = "10",
doi = "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

AU - Victorino, Kristen

AU - Murray, Sarah

PY - 2019/10/10

Y1 - 2019/10/10

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 - 10.1044/2019_LSHSS-18-0099

DO - 10.1044/2019_LSHSS-18-0099

M3 - Article

C2 - 31419169

AN - SCOPUS:85073125958

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 -