DOCSLIB.ORG

Screening for Speech and Language Delay and Disorders in Children Age 5 Years Or Younger: a Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Screening for Speech and Language Delay and Disorders in Children Age 5 Years Or Younger: a Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S Evidence Synthesis Number 120 Screening for Speech and Language Delay and Disorders in Children Age 5 Years or Younger: A Systematic Evidence Review for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force Prepared for: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality U.S. Department of Health and Human Services 540 Gaither Road Rockville, MD 20850 www.ahrq.gov Contract No. HHSA-290-2012-0001-5I, Task Order No. 2 Prepared by: RTI International–University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center Research Triangle Park, NC Investigators: Nancy D. Berkman, PhD Ina Wallace, PhD Linda Watson, EdD Tamera Coyne-Beasley, MD, MPH Katie Cullen, BA Charles Wood, MD Kathleen N. Lohr, PhD AHRQ Publication No. 13-05197-EF-1 November 2014 DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE This report is based on research conducted by the RTI International–University of North Carolina Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) under contract to the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA-290-2012-0001-5I, TO2). The findings and conclusions in this document are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents, and do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. Therefore, no statement in this report should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. The information in this report is intended to help health care decisionmakers—patients and clinicians, health system leaders, and policymakers, among others—make well-informed decisions and thereby improve the quality of health care services. This report is not intended to be a substitute for the application of clinical judgment. Anyone who makes decisions concerning the provision of clinical care should consider this report in the same way as any medical reference and in conjunction with all other pertinent information (i.e., in the context of available resources and circumstances presented by individual patients). Persons using assistive technology may not be able to fully access information in this report. For assistance, contact http://www.uspreventiveservicestaskforce.org/Page/Name/contact-us. None of the investigators report any affiliations or financial involvement that conflicts with the material presented in this report. Acknowledgments The authors acknowledge the following individuals for their contributions to this project: Karen Lee, MD, MPH, AHRQ Medical Officer; current and former members of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force who contributed to topic deliberations; Evelyn Whitlock, MD, MPH, Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates EPC Director; Tracy Beil, MS, Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates EPC; and the following RTI–UNC EPC staff: Carol Woodell, BSPH, Project Manager, Meera Viswanathan, PhD, EPC Director, Lynn Whitener, DrPH, MSLS, librarian, Manny Coker- Schwimmer, MPH, research assistant, Laura Small, BA, editor, and Loraine Monroe and Judith Cannada, publication specialists. Screening for Speech and Language Delay ii RTI–UNC EPC DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Structured Abstract Purpose: To evaluate the evidence on screening and treating children for speech and language delay or disorders for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF). Data Sources: PubMed/MEDLINE, the Cochrane Library, PsychInfo, ClinicalTrials.gov, HSRProj, the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform, and reference lists of published literature (through July 2014). Study Selection: Two investigators independently selected studies reporting on benefits and harms of screening; accuracy of screening tools compared with diagnostic evaluations; and benefits or harms of treatment of speech and language delay or disorders compared with placebo, watchful waiting, or waitlist interventions. To provide context for evaluating our Key Questions, we also included studies describing screening instruments and risk factors for speech and language delay or disorder. Data Extraction: One reviewer extracted data and a second checked accuracy. Two independent reviewers assigned quality ratings using predefined criteria. Data Synthesis: No included studies examined the impact of screening on speech and language or other functional outcomes. We included 23 studies evaluating the accuracy of speech and language screening in primary care settings to identify children for diagnostic evaluations and interventions. Among instruments in 13 studies in which parents rated their children’s skills, sensitivity ranged between 50 and 94 percent, and specificity ranged between 45 and 96 percent. Of 3 instruments widely used in the United States, the MacArthur Communication Development Inventory (CDI) and the Language Development Survey (LDS) outperformed the Ages and Stages Questionnaire (ASQ) Communication domain, especially in terms of their specificity, correctly identifying on average 82 percent (CDI) and 91 percent (LDS), compared with 58 percent (ASQ). The ASQ and CDI have versions for infants, toddlers, and preschool-age children, with the CDI being more robust across age groups. The accuracy of professionally or paraprofessionally administered instruments was more variable across studies and many did not perform as well as parent-rated instruments. Because few studies examined the same instrument with different populations or with different ages, it is unclear how multiage professionally or paraprofessionally administered instruments fare more broadly or whether there is an optimal age for screening. We found no studies addressing adverse effects of screening, such as deleterious consequences of false conclusions from screening. We also found no studies concerning the role of enhanced surveillance by a primary care provider. We included 13 studies examining treatment for speech and language delay or disorders. Although the treatment approaches sometimes may overlap, we organized our findings by outcomes: language (including expressive and receptive language, and more specific aspects of language such as vocabulary, syntax/morphology, and narratives), speech sounds (including articulation, phonology, and speech intelligibility), and fluency (stuttering). Although results were mixed, the majority of studies found treatment to be effective. Characteristics of effective studies include higher intensity, treating children with more severe delays, and individualizing Screening for Speech and Language Delay iii RTI–UNC EPC DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE treatment to the child. We found little evidence concerning other functional outcomes or adverse effects of treatment. Risk factors that were generally associated with speech and language delay or disorders in multivariate analyses of cohort populations included being male, a family history of speech and language concerns, and lower levels of parental educational achievement. Limitations: As in the earlier review, we did not find any well-conducted trials that could address our overarching question of whether screening leads to improved outcomes. Many screening studies do not include unselected samples from the population but rather participants with and without language delays. Intervention studies did not consistently control for additional community services that children may have been receiving and varied greatly in treatment approach and outcome measurement. Also, because young children with disabilities are entitled to treatment, it may not be possible for future studies in the United States to examine treatment versus no treatment. Conclusion: This synthesis yields evidence that two parent-rated screeners, the CDI and LDS, can accurately identify children for diagnostic evaluations and interventions and likely can be interpreted with little difficulty in the primary care setting. Some treatments for young children identified with speech and language delays and disorders may be effective. Screening for Speech and Language Delay iv RTI–UNC EPC DRAFT—DO NOT CITE OR DISTRIBUTE Table of Contents Chapter 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1 Overview and Objective ............................................................................................................. 1 Previous USPSTF Recommendation .......................................................................................... 1 Previous USPSTF Conclusions ............................................................................................ 1 Condition Definition ................................................................................................................... 2 Prevalence ............................................................................................................................ 4 Burden .................................................................................................................................. 5 Course, Comorbidity, and Sequelae ........................................................................................... 5 Etiology and Natural History ............................................................................................... 5 Sequelae ................................................................................................................................ 5 Current Clinical Practice in the United States ............................................................................ 6 Identification of Speech and Language Delays and Disorders in Primary Care Settings .......... 6 Interventions and Treatment ......................................................................................................
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Genetic Causes.Pdf
    1 September 2015 Genetic causes of childhood apraxia of speech: Case‐based introduction to DNA, inheritance, and clinical management Beate Peter, Ph.D., CCC‐SLP Assistant Professor Dpt. of Speech & Hearing Science Arizona State University Adjunct Assistant Professor AG Dpt. of Communication Sciences & Disorders ATAGCT Saint Louis University T TAGCT Affiliate Assistant Professor Dpt. of Speech & Hearing Sciences University of Washington 1 Disclosure Statement Disclosure Statement Dr. Peter is co‐editor of a textbook on speech development and disorders (B. Peter & A. MacLeod, Eds., 2013), for which she may receive royalty payments. If she shares information about her ongoing research study, this may result in referrals of potential research participants. She has no financial interest or related personal interest of bias in any organization whose products or services are described, reviewed, evaluated or compared in the presentation. 2 Agenda Topic Concepts Why we should care about genetics. Case 1: A sporadic case of CAS who is missing a • Cell, nucleus, chromosomes, genes gene. Introduction to the language of genetics • From genes to proteins • CAS can result when a piece of DNA is deleted or duplicated Case 2: A multigenerational family with CAS • How the FOXP2 gene was discovered and why research in genetics of speech and language disorders is challenging • Pathways from genes to proteins to brain/muscle to speech disorder Case 3: One family's quest for answers • Interprofessional teams, genetic counselors, medical geneticists, research institutes • Early signs of CAS, parent education, early intervention • What about genetic testing? Q&A 3 “Genetic Causes of CAS: Case-Based Introduction to DNA, Inheritance and Clinical Management,” Presented by: Beate Peter, PhD, CCC-SLP, September 29, 2015, Sponsored by: CASANA 2 Why should you care about genetics? 4 If you are a parent of a child with childhood apraxia of speech … 5 When she was in preschool, He doesn’t have any friends.
    [Show full text]
  • Therapy for Speech Sound Disorders.Pdf
    2018 Fall Conference Salem, Oregon Friday, October 12, 2018 Therapy for Speech Sound Disorders: What Works and Why NSOME Don't Work Presented by: Gregory L. Lof, PhD, CCC-SLP, FASHA Educational Consultant Professor Emeritus MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA Theory and Evidence Against the Use of Nonspeech Oral Motor Exercises (NSOME) to Change Speech Sound Productions in Children Gregory L. Lof, PhD, CCC-SLP, FASHA October, 2018 Nonspeech Oral Motor Movements Defined • NSOMs are motor acts performed by various parts of the speech musculature to accomplish specific movement or postural goals that are not sufficient in themselves to have phonetic identity (Kent, 2015). Nonspeech Oral Motor Exercises (NSOME) Defined • Any technique that does not require the child to produce a speech sound but is used to influence the development of speaking abilities (Lof & Watson, 2008). • A collection of nonspeech methods and procedures that claim to influence tongue, lip, and jaw resting postures, increase strength, improve muscle tone, facilitate range of motion, and develop muscle control (Ruscello, 2008). • Oral-motor exercises (OMEs) are nonspeech activities that involve sensory stimulation to or actions of the lips, jaw, tongue, soft palate, larynx, and respiratory muscles which are intended to influence the physiologic underpinnings of the oropharyngeal mechanism and thus improve its functions. They include active muscle exercise, muscle stretching, passive exercise, and sensory stimulation (McCauley, Strand, Lof, et al., 2009). Do SLPs use NSOME? What Kind? • 85% of SLPs in the USA use NSOME to change speech sound productions (Lof & Watson, 2008); 85% of Canadian SLPs use NSOME (Hodge et al., 2005); 79% in Kentucky (Cima et al., 2009); 81% in South Carolina (Lemmon et al., 2010); 46% in Minnesota (Louma & Collins, 2012); 91% in India (Thomas & Kaipa, 2015); 49% in Australia (Rumbach, Rose, & Cheah, 2018).
    [Show full text]
  • Code Description
    Code Description 0061 Chronic intestinal amebiasis without mention of abscess 0062 Amebic nondysenteric colitis 0063 Amebic liver abscess 0064 Amebic lung abscess 00642 West Nile fever with other neurologic manifestation 00649 West Nile fever with other complications 0065 Amebic brain abscess 0066 Amebic skin ulceration 0068 Amebic infection of other sites 0069 Amebiasis, unspecified 0070 Other protozoal intestinal diseases, balantidiasis (Infection by Balantidium coli) 0071 Other protozoal intestinal diseases, giardiasis 0072 Other protozoal intestinal diseases, coccidiosis 0073 Other protozoal intestinal diseases, trichomoniasis 0074 Other protozoal intestinal diseases, cryptosporidiosis 0075 Other protozoal intestional disease cyclosporiasis 0078 Other specified protozoal intestinal diseases 0079 Unspecified protozoal intestinal disease 01000 Primary tuberculous infection, unspecified 01001 Primary tuberculous infection bacteriological or histological examination not done 01002 Primary tuberculous infection, bacteriological or histological examination results unknown 01003 Primary tuberculous infection, tubercle bacilli found by microscopy 01004 Primary tuberculous infection, tubercle bacilli found by bacterial culture 01005 Primary tuberculous infection, tubercle bacilli confirmed histolgically 01006 Primary tuberculous infection, tubercle bacilli found by other methods 01010 Tuberculous pleurisy in primary progressive tuberculosis unspecified 01011 Tuberculous pleurisy bacteriological or histological examination not done 01012 Tuberculous
    [Show full text]
  • Speech-Language Pathology: Student Clinical Handbook
    DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNICATION DISORDERS SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY: STUDENT CLINICAL HANDBOOK 1 Table of Contents Page Overview of LSUHSC Graduate Program A. Departmental Mission 4 B. Sources of Information 5 1. LSUHSC Catalogue/Bulletin 5 2. LSUHSC Department of Communication Disorders 5 3. ASHA Certification Handbook 5 4. Speech-Language Pathology Handbook 5 General In-House Clinic Policies A. Timeliness 6 B. Illness 6 C. Dress Code 6 D. Attendance 7 E. Clinical Resources 8 F. Infection Control Procedures 9 G. Clinic Cleanup 10 H. Emergency Procedures 11 1. Medical Emergencies or Accidents 11 2. Fire Procedures 11 I. Confidentiality 12 J. Medical Records 13 Clinic Practicum A. Observations 15 B. Clinic: Treatment 16 1. Client Preparation 16 2. Telephone Contact 16 3. Treatment Room Sign-Up 16 4. First Week of Treatment Session 17 5. Program Planning 17 6. Treatment Documentation: Routing 17 7. Types of Treatment Documentation 18 8. Conferencing 19 9. End of Semester Duties 19 C. Clinic: Diagnostics/Evaluations 20 1. Assignments 20 2. Confirmation Phone Call 20 3. Illness 21 4. Greeting Client 21 5. Client Conference/Counseling 21 6. Concluding the Evaluation 22 7. Filing of Test Forms 22 8. Diagnostic/Evaluation Documentation: Routing 22 9. Diagnostic Protocols 23 10. Case Staffing 23 2 D. Patient Satisfaction Surveys 23 E. Grading Policy for Students in Clinic 24 1. Observations 24 2. Clinical Practicum 24 F. Procedures for Student Experiencing Clinic Difficulty 24 G. Evaluation of Clinical Supervisor 25 H. Recording Clinical Hours 25 Complaints, Comments and Concerns 27 Appendices A. Confirmation Phone Scripts 29 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Clinical Guide to Assessment and Treatment of Communication Disorders Best Practices in Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health Care
    Best Practices in Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health Care Series Editor: Fred R. Volkmar Patricia A. Prelock Ti any L. Hutchins Clinical Guide to Assessment and Treatment of Communication Disorders Best Practices in Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health Care Series Editor Fred R. Volkmar Yale University New Haven, CT, USA Best Practices in Child and Adolescent Behavioral Health Care series explores a range of topics relevant to primary care providers in managing a broad range of child and adolescent mental health problems. These include specific disorders, such as anxiety; relevant topics in related disciplines, including psychological assessment, communication assessment, and disorders; and such general topics as management of psychiatric emergencies. The series aims to provide primary care providers with leading-edge information that enables best-care management of behavioral health issues in children and adolescents. The volumes published in this series provide concise summaries of the current research base (i.e., what is known), best approaches to diagnosis and assessment, and leading evidence-based management and treatment strategies. The series also provides information and analysis that primary care providers need to understand how to interpret and implement best treatment practices and enable them to interpret and implement recommendations from specialists for children and effectively monitor interventions. More information about this series at http://www.springer.com/series/15955 Patricia A. Prelock • Tiffany L. Hutchins
    [Show full text]
  • Don't Wait-And-See, Research Suggests
    Don’t wait-and-see, research suggests By Lauren Lowry Hanen S-LP and Clinical Staff Writer Historically, intervening with the group of children known as “late talkers” has been the source of some debate within the field of speech language pathology (Hawa & Spanoudis, 2014). Late talkers are children who: Late talkers are children who: • are between 18 – 20 months and have fewer than 10 words; OR • are between 21 - 24 months and have fewer than 25 words; OR • are between 24 – 30 months and have fewer than 50 words and/or no two-word combinations; AND • have no major areas of concern in other areas of development (e.g. understanding, play, social, motor, cognitive skills) (Rescorla, Mirak, & Singh, 2000) While some researchers and professionals have advocated early intervention in order to prevent future difficulties, others have adopted a wait-and-see approach, whereby a child is not referred for intervention, despite failing a language screening (Capone Singleton, 2018). The wait-and-see approach is based on the idea that this group of children is likely to catch up to their peers on their own. However, two recent articles by Capone Singleton (2018) and Hawa et al. (2014) remind us of the body of research which strongly suggests that the wait-and-see approach is outdated, and that an ounce of prevention may be worth a pound of cure when it comes to late talkers. Late talker, late bloomer, language disorder – what’s the difference? It’s important to sort out some terminology before we go any further: • “Late talkers” are children with early language delay despite typical cognition, sensory and motor systems, and the absence of genetic or neurologic disease.
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Used ICD-10 Codes
    ICD-10 codes The RCSLT Online Outcome Tool uses the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Edition (ICD-10)1, developed by the World Health Organization. More information about this coding and classification system is available at: http://www.who.int/classifications/icd/en/ This document provides ICD-10 codes commonly used by SLTs using the ROOT for both communication and swallowing disorder descriptors and medical diagnoses. Communication and swallowing disorder descriptors: frequently used ICD-10 codes (F50) Eating disorders (R13.13) Dysphagia, pharyngeal phase (F80.0) Specific speech articulation (R13.14) Dysphagia, pharyngoesophageal disorder phase (F80.1) Expressive language disorder (R41.841) Cognitive communication (F80.2) Receptive language disorder deficit (F80.82) Social (pragmatic) (R47.0) Dysphasia/aphasia communication disorder (R47.1) Dysarthria/anarthria (F80.8) Other developmental disorders of (R48.0) Dyslexia/alexia speech and language (R48.2) Speech articulation impairment (F80.9) Developmental disorder of due to apraxia speech and language, unspecified (R49.0) Dysphonia (F94.0) Elective mutism (R49.21) Hypernasality (F98.2) Feeding disorder of infancy and (R49.22) Hyponasality childhood (R49.8) Other voice and unspecified voice (F98.5) Stuttering [stammering] disorders (F98.6) Cluttering (R62.0) Delayed milestone (late talker) (P92.9) Feeding problem of newborn, (R69) Unknown and unspecified causes unspecified of morbidity (R13.10) Dysphagia, unspecified (Z71.1) Person with feared complaint in (R13.11) Dysphagia, oral phase whom no diagnosis is made (R13.12) Dysphagia, oropharyngeal phase 1 The RCSLT is aware that ICD-11 has now been released. Following adoption by Member States, ICD-11 will come into effect in January 2022.
    [Show full text]
  • 2010 ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Codes
    2010 ICD-9-CM Diagnosis Codes Related to Speech and Hearing Disorders CONTENTS ICD-9-CM DIAGNOSIS CODES LIST...................................................................2 ICD-9-CM - VOLUME 1 ........................................................................................3 V CODES............................................................................................................20 ICD-9-CM - VOLUME 3 ......................................................................................22 CODING NORMAL RESULTS QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS ..........................24 CODE TO THE HIGHEST DEGREE OF SPECIFICITY .....................................27 ICD–9 Diagnosis Codes 1 ICD-9-CM Diagnostic Codes Overview: The International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision, Clinical Modification (ICD-9-CM) is based on the World Health Organization’s Ninth Revision, International Classification of Diseases (ICD-9). ICD-9-CM is the official system of assigning codes to diagnoses and procedures associated with hospital utilization in the United States. The ICD-9 is used to code and classify mortality data from death certificates. The ICD-9-CM consists of: A tabular list containing a numerical list of the disease code numbers in tabular form; An alphabetical index to the disease entries, and A classification system for surgical, diagnostic, and therapeutic procedures (alphabetic index and tabular list). The National Center for Health Statistics (NCHS) and the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services are the U.S. governmental agencies
    [Show full text]
  • Speech Language Services and Insurance
    Insurance Coverage of Speech Pathology Services: What Parents Need to Know Created by Tatyana Elleseff MA CCC-SLP Smart Speech Therapy LLC For Individual Use Only Do not resell, copy, or share downloads. Do not remove copyright WWW.SMARTSPEECHTHERAPY.COM Copyright © 2013 Smart Speech Therapy LLC Page ‹#› Overview This presentation provides basic information regarding insurance coverage for common outpatient speech language assessment and therapy services. It contains important questions parents must ask when speaking to their insurance representatives regarding service coverage. It provides common ICD-9 and ICD-10 pediatric diagnostic codes, lists common SLP-based therapeutic (CPT) codes and discusses common service exclusions in private large insurance policies. It also provides some suggestions on how to initiate appeals for denial of services and includes links to helpful resources parents can access to obtain further elaboration on the information provided in this presentation. WWW.SMARTSPEECHTHERAPY.COM Copyright © 2013 Smart Speech Therapy LLC Page ‹#› Intended Audience Parents Caregivers Speech Language Pathologists (SLPs) New Graduates Clinical Fellows Private Practitioners SLPs may forward this presentation to the parents seeking clarification on reimbursement questions WWW.SMARTSPEECHTHERAPY.COM Copyright © 2013 Smart Speech Therapy LLC Page ‹#› Disclaimer The above information was gathered on the East Coast and is applicable primarily to the states located in that area This information is by no means an exhaustive
    [Show full text]
  • 2013 ICD‐10‐CM Diagnosis Codes For
    2013ICD10CMDiagnosisCodes RelatedtoSpeech,Language,andSwallowingDisorders ThecodesinICD10arenotvalidforanypurposeoruseintheUnitedStatesuntil October1,2014. GeneralInformation ThisASHAdocumentprovidesalistingofthe2013InternationalClassificationofDiseases, TenthRevision,ClinicalModification(ICD10CM)codesrelatedtospeech,language,and swallowingdisorders.Thisdocumentisnotacomprehensivelistandanumberofcodesare includedforinformationpurposesonly.Entrieswithonlythreeorfourdigitsmayrequire codingtoahigherdegreeofspecificitythanindicatedhere.However,ingeneral,speech languagepathologyrelateddiagnoseswillbelistedtotheirhighestlevelofspecificity. ThecodesinICD10arenotvalidforanypurposeoruseintheUnitedStatesuntilOctober1, 2014.Formoreinformationonthetransition,see www.asha.org/Practice/reimbursement/coding/ICD10/. ForthemostuptodateinformationonICDcoding,gotoASHA’sBillingandReimbursement websiteatwww.asha.org/practice/reimbursement/coding/. Foradditionalinformation,contactthehealthcareeconomicsandadvocacyteambyemailat [email protected]. TableofContents ICD10CMDIAGNOSTICCODES 4 Overview.............................................................................................................................................4 Scope.................................................................................................................................................4 Purpose...............................................................................................................................................4 RelationtoProfessionalScopeofPractice..........................................................................................4
    [Show full text]
  • “It Can Start by Being a Late Talker”: the Prevalence, Availability of Speech
    Discipline of Speech Pathology Faculty of Health Sciences ABN 15 211 513 464 Ms Rosemary Hodges, Dr. Natalie Munro The University of Sydney and Dr Elise Baker NSW 2006 AUSTRALIA Submission to the Senate Community Affairs Reference Committee, 2014. “An inquiry into the prevalence of different types of speech, language and communication disorders and speech pathology services in Australia” “It can start by being a late talker”: The prevalence, availability of speech pathology services and outcomes for children who have speech and language communication disorders. For every parent, hearing their child start to talk is a milestone that is eagerly anticipated. Mums and dads excitedly record their child’s first words in baby books and on smart phones. While for most, these precious first words occur around a child’s first birthday, some parents are left waiting and wondering why their child just isn’t talking. In this submission we comment on the prevalence, availability of speech pathology services and outcomes of children who are late to talk and then diagnosed with speech/language impairment. Prevalence: For some children, learning to talk does not come easily. By 2-years-old, these children are often termed “late talkers”. Late talkers are toddlers who use less than 50 words and few word combinations in the absence of other developmental delays (e.g. cognitive, physical) (Rescorla, 1989). A recent Australian study suggests that these children represent around 19% of 2-year-olds (Reilly et al., 2007). Both research (e.g., Horwitz et al., 2003) and our personal experiences with families indicate that late talking is of significant concern for parents.
    [Show full text]
  • Address to Senate Inquiry Into Speech Pathology Services 2014
    2014 Senate Inquiry into prevalence and implications of different types of speech, language and communication disorders and speech pathology services in Australia 20.2.14 Dear Committee Secretary, Senate Standing Committee on Community Affairs, Gold Coast Speech Pathologists would like Senators to understand their local story. The population on the Gold Coast region is around 514 000. The number of speech pathologists is approximately 50 private and 50 education, health or other agency speech pathologists. The incidence of communication disorders is 14% so that means there are 71 960 people needing speech pathology on the Gold Coast, but with only 100 speech pathologists, that means there is only one speech pathologist to support 719 people. This is an impossible task. Implications for children A full time speech pathologist in a paediatric private practice can comfortably treat around 40 clients each week but the nature of some disorders are such that some clients e.g. those with severe speech sound disorders need treatment weekly for 40 sessions i.e. 12 months. So, having to provide a service for over 700 people would mean an extremely diluted and most probably ineffective service. The Gold Coast region is the worst area in Queensland per 100 000 compared with other regions in the state. With only 19 speech pathologists per 100 000 compared with 27 being the average, this means that many hundreds of children, teenagers and adults are struggling without support. This translates to 12% of primary school children or in more comprehensible terms, 3 children in every classroom in need of speech pathology support.
    [Show full text]