CATALISE: A multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study. Identifying language impairments in children

Delayed or impaired language development is a common developmental concern, yet thereis little agreement about the criteria used to identify and classify language impairments inchildren. Children's language difficulties are at the interface between education, medicineand the allied professions, who may all adopt different approaches to conceptualising them.Our goal in this study was to use an online Delphi technique to see whether it was possibleto achieve consensus among professionals on appropriate criteria for identifying childrenwho might benefit from specialist services. We recruited a panel of 59 experts representingten disciplines (including education, psychology, speech-language therapy/pathology, paediatricsand child psychiatry) from English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland,New Zealand, United Kingdom and USA). The starting point for round 1 was a set of 46statements based on articles and commentaries in a special issue of a journal focusing onthis topic. Panel members rated each statement for both relevance and validity on a sevenpointscale, and added free text comments. These responses were synthesised by the firsttwo authors, who then removed, combined or modified items with a view to improving consensus.The resulting set of statements was returned to the panel for a second evaluation(round 2). Consensus (percentage reporting 'agree' or 'strongly agree') was at least 80 percentfor 24 of 27 round 2 statements, though many respondents qualified their responsewith written comments. These were again synthesised by the first two authors. The resultingconsensus statement is reported here, with additional summary of relevant evidence, and aconcluding commentary on residual disagreements and gaps in the evidence base.</p

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

Background: Lack 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.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 57 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. 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. Conclusions: This Delphi exercise highlights reasons for disagreements about terminology for language disorders and proposes standard definitions and nomenclature. </p

Hearing people perceiving deaf people through sign language interpreters at work: on the loss of self through interpreted communication.

This article addresses the impact on occupational relations of mediated communication through a sign language interpreter from the perspective of hearing people who do not sign but who work alongside deaf signers in the workplace. Based on a phenomenological analysis of eight semi-structured interviews, findings address the influence of phonocentrism on working practice between deaf and hearing people. In particular, the implications of the inscription of identity and presence through an embodied language are discussed. The consequences of failure to acknowledge the interpreter as a contingent practice for all, not just the deaf person, are examined. The findings have implications for the recognition and promotion of deaf agency and talent in the ‘hearing’ work place and extend understandings of structural influences on workplace discriminations to include those of interpreted communication.</p