Comparison of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Screening Test Risk Subtest to Two Other Screeners for Low-Income Prekindergartners Who Speak African American English and Live in the Urban South.
Christy Wynn Moland, Janna B Oetting
PMID 34582275WHAT IT FOUND
Three recommended language screeners produced high failure rates and disagreed on nearly half of 73 African American prekindergartners.
The DELV–Screening Test Risk failed 52% of children. Clinicians should expect inconsistent results when screening low-income speakers of African American English in the urban South.
Key findings
01The DELV–Screening Test Risk subtest classified 52% of the 73 participants as high risk, a rate that did not differ significantly from the 48% failure rate of the Washington and Craig Language Screener.
02Screening outcomes were inconsistent across the three tools for 44% of the children, with only 56% receiving identical pass or fail decisions from all three screeners.
03The FLUHARTY-2 produced variable failure rates ranging from 34% to 75% depending on whether scoring was modified for nonmainstream English forms and which quotient was used.
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 study did not use a comprehensive clinical battery to determine true language impairment status; it relied on school records for the six children with diagnosed disorders. The sample may have included undiagnosed children with language impairment, which could affect sensitivity and specificity calculations. The study was not blinded; a single examiner administered all screeners, though the authors note this would likely have inflated consistency rather than reduced it. The results apply specifically to low-income African American children in the urban South with high dialect density (95% nonmainstream forms); other populations may perform differently. The WCLS is not a commercially published screener, which may limit its accessibility for some clinicians.
Declared interests
The first author was supported by a Huel Perkins Fellowship from Louisiana State University, and the second author was supported by a National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders grant. The data were collected as part of the first author's dissertation.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume the DELV–Screening Test Risk is more accurate than the WCLS or FLUHARTY-2 for this population. All three screeners produced high fail rates and inconsistent outcomes. A child failing one screener does not confirm impairment, and passing one does not rule it out, given the 44% disagreement rate across tools.