A Scoping Review of the Observed and Perceived Functional Impacts Associated With Language and Learning Disorders in School-Aged Children.
Jérémy Perichon, Marianne J Paul, Damien Chabanal and 1 others
PMID 40653909WHAT IT FOUND
Current terminology for functional impacts in children with language disorders is inconsistent and poorly defined.
This review proposes a new model distinguishing between observable performance issues and the child's subjective experience to guide more holistic assessment.
Key findings
01Only 20 of 53 included studies used terms related to functional consequences, and none provided precise definitions, leading to significant conceptual ambiguity.
02The review proposes a new framework that distinguishes between 'observed functional impacts' (objective limitations) and 'perceived functional impacts' (subjective emotional and behavioural responses).
03Standardised tests alone are insufficient for diagnosing severity or functional impact because they do not capture real-world performance or contextual factors.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The search was limited to studies published between 2013 and 2023. Only studies in French, English, or those translatable via software were included, potentially introducing linguistic and cultural bias. Inter-rater reliability was not assessed for all stages of the review process. The proposed OPFI model is currently a conceptual framework and has not yet been validated for clinical utility or psychometric properties. The review excluded studies on autism and intellectual disabilities, limiting generalisability to co-occurring conditions.
Declared interests
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the OPFI model is a validated assessment tool. It is a conceptual framework proposed by the authors to address terminology gaps, but it has not yet been tested for reliability, validity, or clinical effectiveness in practice.