ArticlePeerJ2015
Early prediction of language and literacy problems: is 18 months too early?
Article in PeerJ, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Early child measures outpredict input measures of preschool language skills in U.S. English learners.Developmental psychology · 2026Article
- Language and Beyond: A Registered Report Examining Single and Multiple Risk Models of Later Reading Comprehension Weaknesses.Developmental science · 2025Article
- Language outcomes from the UK-CDI Project: can risk factors, vocabulary skills and gesture scores in infancy predict later language disorders or concern for language development?Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
- Do early lexical skills predict language outcome at 3 years? A longitudinal study of French-speaking children.Infant behavior & development · 2019Article
- Analysis of the quality of online resources for parents of children who are late to talk.Autism & developmental language impairmentsArticle
- Language Difficulties in School-Age Children With Developmental Dyslexia.Journal of learning disabilitiesArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
There is a lack of stability in language difficulties across early childhood: most late talkers (LTs) resolve their difficulties by pre-school; and a significant number of children who were not LTs subsequently manifest language difficulties. Greater reliability in predicting individual outcomes is needed, which might be achieved by waiting until later in development when language is more stable. At 18 months, productive vocabulary scores on the Oxford Communicative Developmental Inventory were used to classify children as LTs or average talkers (ATs). Thirty matched-pairs of LTs and ATs were followed up at school-age (average age 7 years), when language and literacy outcomes were assessed. For 18 children, intermediate testing at age 4 had classified them as showing typical development (TD) or specific language impairment (SLI). After correcting for multiple comparisons, there were no significant differences between the LTs and ATs on any outcome measure, and the LTs were performing in the average range. However, there were large-sized effects on all outcomes when comparing the TD and SLI groups. LT status on its own is not determinative of language and literacy difficulties. It would therefore not be appropriate to use expressive vocabulary measures alone to screen for language difficulties at 18 months. However, children with language impairment at age 4 are at risk of enduring difficulties.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.