Background. Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) is frequent in childhood and may have long-term sequelae. By employing an evidence-based approach, this scoping review aims at identifying (a) early predictors of DLD; (b) the optimal age range for the use of screening and diagnostic tools; (c) effective diagnostic tools in preschool children. Methods. We considered systematic reviews, meta-analyses, and primary observational studies with control groups on predictive, sensitivity and specificity values of screening and diagnostic tools and psycholinguistic measures for the assessment of DLD in preschool children. We identified 37 studies, consisting of 10 systematic reviews and 27 primary studies. Results. Delay in gesture production, receptive and/or expressive vocabulary, syntactic comprehension, or word combination up to 30 months emerged as early predictors of DLD, a family history of DLD appeared to be a major risk factor, and low socioeconomic status and environmental input were reported as risk factors with lower predictive power. Optimal time for screening is suggested between age 2 and 3, for diagnosis around age 4. Because of the high variability of sensitivity and specificity values, joint use of standardized and psycholinguistic measures is suggested to increase diagnostic accuracy. Conclusions. Monitoring risk situations and employing caregivers’ reports, clinical assessment and multiple linguistic measures are fundamental for an early identification of DLD and timely interventions.

Among children in the third year of life, late talkers comprise from 9% to 20%. This range seems to increase when addressing preterm children. This study examined video-recorded child spontaneous speech during parent–child book sharing as well as linguistic skills reported through the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventories (MB-CDI) Short Form in 61 late talkers aged 30 months old (26 low-risk preterm, 8 females; 35 full-term, 12 females). Differences between low-risk preterm and full-term late talkers in child language measures and parental speech input were tested, as were the roles of child and parent factors on child language. Low-risk preterm and full-term late talkers showed similar speech and language skills. Similarly, no differences were found in measures of parental speech between groups. Child cognitive score, chronological age, and low-risk preterm status were positively associated with lexical diversity, rate, and composition of child speech production, whereas family history for language and/or learning disorders as well as parent measures of lexical diversity, rate, and grammatical complexity were negatively associated with the above child variables. In addition, child cognitive score and low-risk preterm status were positively associated with the MB-CDI measures of word and sentence production. Findings are discussed in terms of the need of good practices when following up on low-risk preterm children and of interventions targeting parents’ input to preterm and full-term late talkers.

Parent-implemented language interventions have been used for children with expressive language delays, but no study has yet been carried out using this intervention for low-risk preterm children. The current study examined the effect of a parent-implemented dialogic book reading intervention, determining also whether the intervention differently impacted low-risk preterm and full-term children. Fifty 31-month-old late talkers with their parents participated; 27 late talkers constituted the intervention group, and 23 constituted the control group. The overall results indicated that more children in the intervention group showed partial or full recovery of their lexical expressive delay and acquired the ability to produce complete sentences relative to the control group. Concerning full-term late talkers, those in the intervention group showed a higher daily growth rate of total words, nouns, function words, and complete sentences, and more children began to produce complete sentences relative to those in the control group. Concerning low-risk preterm late talkers, children in the intervention group increased their ability to produce complete sentences more than those in the control group. We conclude that a parent-focused intervention may be an effective, ecological, and cost-effective program for improving expressive lexical and syntactic skills of full-term and low-risk preterm late talkers, calling for further studies in late talkers with biological vulnerabilities.

Purpose: Wide interindividual variability characterizes language development in the general and at-risk populations of up to 3 years of age. We adopted a complex approach that considers multiple aspects of lexical and grammatical skills to identify language profiles in low-risk preterm and full-term children. We also investigated biological and environmental predictors and relations between language profiles and cognitive and motor skills.Method: We enrolled 200 thirty-month-old Italian-speaking children—consisting of 100 low-risk preterm and 100 comparable full-term children. Parents filled out the Italian version of the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventories Infant and Toddler Short Forms (word comprehension, word production, and incomplete and complete sentence production), Parent Report of Children's Abilities–Revised (cognitive score), and Early Motor Questionnaire (fine motor, gross motor, perception–action, and total motor scores) questionnaires.Results: A latent profile analysis identified four profiles:poor(21%), with lowest receptive and expressive vocabulary and absent or limited word combination and phonological accuracy;weak(22.5%), with average receptive but limited expressive vocabulary, incomplete sentences, and absent or limited phonological accuracy;average(25%), with average receptive and expressive vocabulary, use of incomplete and complete sentences, and partial phonological accuracy; andadvanced(31.5%), with highest expressive vocabulary, complete sentence production, and phonological accuracy. Lower cognitive and motor scores characterized thepoorprofile, and lower cognitive and perception–action scores characterized theweakprofile. Having a nonworking mother and a father with lower education increased the probability of a child's assignment to thepoorprofile, whereas being small for gestational age at birth increased it for theweakprofile.Conclusions: These findings suggest a need for a person-centered and cross-domain approach to identifying children with language weaknesses and implementing timely interventions. An online procedure for data collection and data-driven analyses based on multiple lexical and grammatical skills appear to be promising methodological innovations.Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14818179