The development and productivity of a measure for identifying low language abilities in children aged 24 – 36 months

Acknowledgements First, we would like to acknowledge the leadership, mentorship and unparalleled contribution to the field of child language research of Professor James Law, OBE, who led this study. Professor Law passed away in October 2021. We also acknowledge the contribution of Professor Sue Roulstone, Caitlin Holme and Rose Watson in aspects of the wider study which contributed to the successful data collection in this study. We would like to express sincere thanks to all the practitioners and parents who gave their time, expertise, and insights in the workshop and codesign activities. The team also wish to acknowledge the role of Sheena Carr and Renvia Mason and colleagues at Public Health England and The Department for Education for their feedback on the original report. Funding The project was funded by the UK’s Department for Education in conjunction with Public Health England.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

What makes screening of preschool children’s speech and language acceptable?:A study of parents’ perspectives

Background:Screening for speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) in the preschool years promotes early identification and provision of support. However, developmental screening is also associated with practical and ethical concerns (Carlton et al., 2021). For example, given variability in early language development, screening may create unnecessary anxiety in parents. Therefore, it is important that we understand what contributes to acceptability of screening for SLCN from parents' perspectives. Sekhon, Cartwright and Francis (2018) developed the ‘Theoretical Framework of Acceptability’ (TFA) as a way to assess acceptability of healthcare interventions. However, to date there are few examples of this framework being used to assess parents’ views about outcomes for their children. Aim / Objectives:This study aimed to explore the applicability of the TFA to the context of screening for speech and language during children’s developmental reviews.Methods:Parents attending the nationally mandated 24-30 month developmental review completed a survey (n=433) based on the TFA. Follow-up qualitative interviews with 40 parents explored perspectives of the speech and language component of the developmental review. Parents were recruited purposively to cover a range of factors, including demographics as well as their level of concern about their child’s language development.Results:Quantitative results from the survey supported acceptability of the screening process, however qualitative results provided a more mixed picture. Some themes from the TFA were relevant, including coherence of the assessment. However, additional themes were found that were specific to the screening context, for example the importance of individualisation, the relationship with the practitioner and the value that parents placed on the outcome of the assessment for their child. Conclusions / take home message:The TFA provided a useful initial framework for exploring acceptability, however this study identified additional elements of acceptability specific to the context of speech and language screening during the developmental review

Universal language development screening : comparative performance of two questionnaires

Acknowledgments The authors would like to acknowledge other members of the “Early Identification” team: Professor Sue Roulstone and Caitlin Holme from the Bristol Speech and Language Therapy Research Unit, Rose Watson from Newcastle University, and Sheena Carr and Renvia Mason from Public Health England for their support throughout the project. Finally, we would like to thank the children and their families who attended the clinics and the health visitors and speech and language therapists who were involved in collecting data for the project.Peer reviewedPublisher PD

Identifying and Supporting Children’s Early Language Needs

Acknowledgements: We would like to thank the practitioners in our five sites for their contribution to this project. Perhaps it goes without saying that it would not have been possible without their input but we would like to thank them especially for their enthusiasm about the project and for contributing to the different elements of the project. Similarly, we would like to thank the parents who gave so readily their time to contribute to the project. It was clear that they valued the service and wanted to improve it for other parents. We are especially grateful to our PPI groups who helped steer the project, as did the Expert Advisory Group hosted by Public Health England and the Department for Education. And, finally, we would like to thank Nikki Hawley, administrator at Newcastle University, for help in data entry and support for the project.Publisher PD

Complex belongings: racialization and migration in a small English city

The article explores how long-term residents in a small city with rural links in the East of England related to new migrants at a time of changing patterns and increased volume of migration. Based on in-depth interviews and observations in 2005–6, the article shows dynamic, complex, and nuanced constructions of belonging and governmentalities of belonging. Long-term Peterborians felt proud that their city attracted migrants and became more multicultural. Many saw this as a normative aspect of being modern. Yet, the arrival of migrants also led to tensions and re-inscribed the racialization of Peterborough's ethnic minorities, articulated through the theme of neighbourliness. Through the figures of ‘uncaring migrant neighbours’ and ‘ruthless Pakistani landlords’, migrants and ethnic minority Peterborians were portrayed as refusing injunctions to care for the neighbourhood and the nation. Ethnic minority Peterborians were positioned ambivalently as hosts of and – at times – targets of racism by new migrants