Due to the difficulties in differentiating bilingual children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) from bilingual children with temporary language difficulties that may be caused by heterogeneous language input, language assessments of bilingual children are challenging for clinicians. Research demonstrates that assessments of bilingual children should be in all the languages a bilingual child speaks. This can be arduous for clinicians, but computerised screening approaches provide potential solutions. MuLiMi is a new web-based platform designed to automatise screening procedures for bilingual children at risk of DLD. To validate this procedure and investigate its reliability, 36 Spanish-speaking children, aged 4–6 years old, living in Italy, were tested remotely using the Italian–Spanish MuLiMi DLD screening. Sixteen of the participants were previously diagnosed with DLD. L2 (second or societal language) as well as L1 (first or family language) language abilities in static (nonword repetition, grammaticality judgement, and verb comprehension) as well as dynamic tasks (dynamic novel word learning) were assessed. Speed and accuracy of the children’s responses were automatically recorded (except nonword repetition). Significant associations emerged between the results obtained in the screening tasks when comparing them to parental questionnaires and standardised tests. An exploratory analysis of the diagnostic accuracy indicates that the single screening scores as well as the overall total score significantly contribute to DLD (risk) identification.

Background: Communication, language, and speech disorders are highly prevalent in children with cerebral palsy (CP) and substantially impact social, educational, and community participation. However, few studies have systematically characterized communicative and linguistic profiles using standardized assessments. This paper outlines the work of the ‘Italian CP & Language Network’ over the last two years, focusing on identifying research priorities, developing specialized assessment protocols, and proposing a shared classification system for speech and language disorders in children with CP. Methods: A survey was sent to 11 specialized centers to investigate clinical practices and assessment tools. Based on the results and an extensive literature review, the group developed three age- and complexity-based diagnostic protocols and a shared classification system. Results: The survey highlighted high variability in test selection, especially for speech and pragmatic assessment, and a significant need for ad hoc tools for augmentative and alternative communication (AAC). Three standardized protocols were defined: (1) early language (<48 months), (2) school-age language and pragmatics (4–12 years), and (3) minimally verbal children (6–12 years). A multi-level classification system for language and speech disorders was proposed to improve diagnostic consistency. Conclusions: Standardizing assessment is a critical step toward early identification of communicative vulnerabilities to guide tailored interventions and promote participation and quality of life across developmental stages. The group provides a framework for prospective multicenter data collection to correlate linguistic and speech phenotypes with neuroradiological features and motor outcomes.

This study collected cross-sectional data on the social, communicative, pragmatic, and linguistic abilities of typically developing 12- to 37-month-old children. A preliminary literature review indicated that no observational tool with robust psychometric properties is currently available to assess communication and language in this age range. To address this gap, a coding scheme was employed on data from 91 typically developing Italian children (all with expressive vocabulary above the 10th percentile), who were divided into 3 groups (G1:12–17 months; G2:18–23 months; G3:24–37 months). Videotaped parent–child play interactions were analyzed to assess communicative frequency, gaze-related communicative prerequisites, communicative roles, communicative functions, and language complexity. Significant group differences and correlations with age and vocabulary were identified, including a reduction in assertiveness and requesting functions and an increase in responsiveness and declarative functions. The developmental progression of linguistic complexity is consistent with the previous literature, supporting the validity of the study and offering implications for both clinical practice and research.

Background: Individuals with complex communication needs (CCNs) require comprehensive communication profiles to guide effective interventions, yet the clinical literature offers limited tools to support this process. To address this gap, the “Italian CP & Language Network”—a multidisciplinary group of speech–language pathologists, psychologists, and child neuropsychiatrists—developed a novel, comprehensive clinical instrument specifically designed to evaluate the communication skills of children and adolescents with CCNs. Methods: The development process was informed by an initial preliminary survey conducted across participating clinical centres to map out the observation tools routinely used in daily practice. Results: Based on these insights, the network designed a structured clinical interview named the Italian IVCAA (Intervista sulla Valutazione delle Competenze e delle Abilità Comunicative). The instrument was structured to systematically assess four core areas: core communication abilities, communicative behaviours, communicative functions, and communicative modalities (vocal, gestural, graphic/symbolic, and written). The Italian IVCAA provides a structured framework that successfully describes an individual’s unique communication profile. It maps out specific strengths and weaknesses across diverse modalities, establishing a standardized baseline for clinical use. Conclusions: The Italian IVCAA serves as a valuable clinical tool for identifying communication profiles in individuals with CCNs. It offers a practical starting point for setting tailored goals in augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) interventions and establishes a reliable framework for monitoring changes in communicative competence over time.