CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development. Phase 2. Terminology
- Subject Areas
- Cognitive Disorders, Pediatrics, Psychiatry and Psychology
- Terminology, Developmental Language Disorder, Specific Language Impairment, Risk factors, Definitions
- © 2017 Bishop et al.
- This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ Preprints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
- Cite this article
- 2017. CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development. Phase 2. Terminology. PeerJ Preprints 5:e2484v2 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2484v2
Background: Lack of agreement about criteria and terminology for children’s language difficulties affects access to services as well as hindering research and practice. We report the second phase of a study using an online Delphi method to address these issues. In the first phase, we focused on criteria for language disorder. Here we consider terminology. Methods: The Delphi method is an iterative process in which an initial set of statements is rated by a panel of experts, who then have the opportunity to view anonymised ratings from other panel members. On this basis they can either revise their views or make a case for their position. The statements are then revised based on panel feedback, and again rated by and commented on by the panel. In this study, feedback from a second round was used to prepare a final set of statements in narrative form. The panel included 54 individuals representing a range of professions and nationalities. Results: We achieved at least 78% agreement for 19 of 21 statements within two rounds of ratings. The term ‘Language Disorder’ was preferred to refer to a profile of difficulties that causes functional impairment in everyday life and is associated with poor prognosis. The term, ‘Developmental Language Disorder’ (DLD) was endorsed for use when the language disorder was not associated with a known biomedical aetiology. It was also agreed that (1) presence of risk factors (neurobiological or environmental) does not preclude a diagnosis of DLD, (2) DLD can co-occur with other neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g., ADHD), and (3) DLD does not require a mismatch between verbal and nonverbal ability. Conclusions: This Delphi exercise highlights reasons for disagreements about terminology for language disorders and proposes standard definitions and nomenclature.
This manuscript has been revised to take into account comments from readers of this version and journal reviewers. The changes have been made to clarify points where the original ms had raised queries. Minor changes have also been made to Figures 1 and 2.