Introduction: Standardized assessments are widely used by speech pathologists in clinical and research settings to evaluate the language abilities of school-aged children and inform decisions about diagnosis, eligibility for services and intervention. Given the significance of these decisions, it is important that assessments have sound psychometric properties. Objective: The aim of this systematic review was to examine the psychometric quality of currently available comprehensive language assessments for school-aged children and identify assessments with the best evidence for use. Methods: Using the PRISMA framework as a guideline, a search of five databases and a review of websites and textbooks was undertaken to identify language assessments and published material on the reliability and validity of these assessments. The methodological quality of selected studies was evaluated using the COSMIN taxonomy and checklist. Results: Fifteen assessments were evaluated. For most assessments evidence of hypothesis testing (convergent and discriminant validity) was identified; with a smaller number of assessments having some evidence of reliability and content validity. No assessments presented with evidence of structural validity, internal consistency or error measurement. Overall, all assessments were identified as having limitations with regards to evidence of psychometric quality. Conclusions: Further research is required to provide good evidence of psychometric quality for currently available language assessments. Of the assessments evaluated, the Assessment of Literacy and Language, the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals- 5th Edition, the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – Preschool: 2nd Edition and the Preschool Language Scales – 5th Edition presented with most evidence and are thus recommended for use.

Purpose: This study reports on data from a survey of speech-language pathologists' (SLPs) language assessment practices for elementary school–age children. The objective was to investigate the regularity with which SLPs use different types of assessments (described across data types, task types, environmental contexts, and dynamic features). This study also investigated factors that influence assessment practice, the main sources from which SLPs obtain information on language assessment and the main challenges reported by SLPs in relation to language assessment. Method: A web-based survey was used to collect information from 407 Australian SLPs regarding the types of assessments they use. Factors that influenced the regularity with which different types of assessments were used were investigated using regression analysis. Results: Most SLPs regularly used assessments that are norm-referenced, decontextualized, and conducted in a clinical context and less regularly used other types of assessments. Service agency, Australian state, and SLPs' years of experience were found to influence the regularity with which some types of assessments were used. Informal discussions with colleagues were the most frequently identified source of information on assessment practice. Main challenges related to limited time, lack of assessment materials, and lack of confidence in assessing children from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Conclusions: SLPs could improve current language assessment practice for elementary school–age children through more regular use of some types of assessments. Actions to facilitate evidence-based assessment practice should consider the contextual differences that exist between service agencies and states and address challenges that SLPs experience in relation to language assessment. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14378948

Purpose: Given the barriers that inconsistent terminology poses for the Speech-Language Pathology (SLP) profession, this study aimed to develop an agreed-upon taxonomy with well-defined categories for describing language assessment practices for children. Method: A taxonomy with illustrative terms for describing assessments across four aspects (modality/domain, purpose, delivery and form) was developed with reference to contemporary literature. In a three round Delphi study, SLPs with expertise in child language were asked to indicate their level of agreement with the taxonomy and provide feedback. Participants were also asked to apply the taxonomy by categorising assessments presented in case studies. Result: A total of 55 participants completed round one, while 43 and 32 completed rounds two and three respectively. Agreed consensus with the taxonomy was achieved in both rounds one and two, with at least 88% of participants agreeing with each aspect and 100% agreeing with the overall structure. In round three, an agreement was reached on 7/10 components for one case study and 4/10 for the other. Conclusion: The development of this taxonomy represents a significant step towards providing detailed terminology for describing language assessments. Future research is needed to investigate implementation strategies to facilitate consistent application of the taxonomy by SLPs.

Purpose Language intervention for children with language disorder may be effective; however, lack of detailed and consistent terminology for describing language interventions poses barriers for advancement within the field. This study aimed to develop consensus from speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in Australia on a taxonomy with terminology for describing language interventions for school-aged children and investigate SLPs' application of taxonomy terminology when describing child language interventions. Method A taxonomy with terms for describing interventions was developed with reference to contemporary literature and presented to clinicians and researchers with expertise in child language disorders in a three-round Delphi study. We asked Delphi participants to indicate agreement with the taxonomy or propose changes. Application of the taxonomy was investigated by asking participants to use taxonomy terminology to describe interventions presented in two case studies. Results The taxonomy consists of five aspects across which interventions may be described: modality/domain, purpose, delivery, form, and teaching techniques. Consensus on the taxonomy was established in both Round 1 (55 participants) and Round 2 (43 participants), with 100% of SLPs strongly agreeing or agreeing with the overall structure of the taxonomy and at least 87.3% of SLPs strongly agreeing or agreeing with each aspect. In Round 3 (32 participants), consensus was reached on 45/54 taxonomy categories (4/12 of the components) for Case Study 1 and 45/54 taxonomy categories (7/12 of the components) for Case Study 2. Conclusions Consensus on a taxonomy with terminology for describing language interventions represents a significant advancement in the field of child language intervention. Future actions may be needed to facilitate consistent application of taxonomy terms. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16435290

Introduction. Patient self-evaluation is an important aspect in the assessment of dysphagia and comprises both Functional Health Status (FHS) and Health-Related Quality of Life (HR-QoL). As many measures combine both FHS and HR-QoL, disease-related functioning cannot be distinguished from disease-related quality of life as experienced by the patient. Moreover, current patient self-reported measures are limited by poor and incomplete data on psychometric properties. Objective. This study aimed to establish content validity for the development of two new self-reported measures on FHS and HR-QoL in adults with oropharyngeal dysphagia (OD), in line with the psychometric taxonomy and guidelines from the COSMIN group (COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments). Methods. Using the Delphi technique, international expert consensus was achieved; participants and patients with dysphagia evaluated relevance, comprehensiveness, and comprehensibility of definitions of relevant constructs (i.e., dysphagia, FHS and HR-QoL) and potential items. Results. A total of 66 Delphi participants from 45 countries achieved consensus across two rounds. The Delphi study resulted in two prototype measures, the Functional health status measure of Oropharyngeal Dysphagia (FOD) and the health-related Quality of life measure of Oropharyngeal Dysphagia (QOD), consisting of 37 and 25 items, respectively. Minimal revisions were required based on feedback by patients. Conclusions. This study provides evidence of good content validity for both newly developed prototype measures FOD and QOD. Future studies will continue the process of refining the measures, and evaluate the remaining psychometric properties using both Classic Test Theory (CTT) and Item Response Theory (IRT) models.