Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28369935›Full record

ArticleJournal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines2017

Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology.

Dorothy V M Bishop, Margaret J Snowling, Paul A Thompson, Trisha Greenhalgh, and the CATALISE-2 consortium

Abstract readMulticenter Study
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of child psychology and psychiatry, and allied disciplines, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 474 papers, 15 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
474citing papers in PubMed, 15 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

474 citing papers in PubMed, 15 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Long-term prognosis of low language proficiency in children.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Trial
  17. Trial
  18. Trial
  19. Review
  20. Article

414 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Dorothy V M BishopDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Margaret J SnowlingDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Paul A ThompsonDepartment of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
Trisha GreenhalghNuffield Department of Primary Care Health Sciences, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
and the CATALISE-2 consortium

Funding

Wellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundLack of agreement about criteria and terminology for children's language problems 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.

methodsThe 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 57 individuals representing a range of professions and nationalities.

resultsWe achieved at least 78% agreement for 19 of 21 statements within two rounds of ratings. These were collapsed into 12 statements for the final consensus reported here. The term 'Language Disorder' is recommended 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 (a) presence of risk factors (neurobiological or environmental) does not preclude a diagnosis of DLD, (b) DLD can co-occur with other neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g. ADHD) and (c) DLD does not require a mismatch between verbal and nonverbal ability.

conclusionsThis Delphi exercise highlights reasons for disagreements about terminology for language disorders and proposes standard definitions and nomenclature.

Indexed as

Language Development DisordersTerminology as TopicConsensus Statements as TopicDelphi TechniqueHumansdefinitionsDevelopmental language disorderrisk factorsspecific language impairmentterminology

Identifiers

PMID28369935
PMCPMC5638113

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.