The perceived guilt and innocence of adults with developmental language disorder and adults with typical language during a mock interrogation

PURPOSE

This study examined if there were differences in the guilty and not guilty judgments of adults with developmental language disorder (DLD) and those with typical language (TL) functioning.

METHOD

Twenty-four adults (12 DLD, 12 TL) were assigned to either the guilty or not guilty conditions. Those in the guilty condition engaged in a mock crime while those in the not guilty condition were informed that a crime had been committed. Peer jurors were presented with video interrogations of the DLD (6 guilty, 6 not guilty) and TL (6 guilty, 6 not guilty) participants and were asked to make categorical judgments of guilty and not guilty and to indicate confidence in their judgments.

RESULTS

In general, peer jurors were not accurate in their judgments of the accused, and were more likely to judge individuals with DLD as guilty relative to accused individuals with TL. Peer jurors were particularly poor at judging innocent adults with DLD as not guilty and guilty adults with TL as guilty. Despite this, peer jurors were more confident than not in their guilty and not guilty determinations.

CONCLUSIONS

Peer jurors are confident in their judgments of the guilt of the accused when they should not be, particularly in the case of accused adults with DLD. Implications are discussed.

Language is a critical mediator of autistic experiences within the criminal justice system

Autism spectrum disorder is characterized by social communication challenges and restricted and repetitive behaviors and interests, but also by highly heterogeneous language skills. The recent International Society of Autism Research (INSAR) policy statement, Autism and the Criminal Justice System: Policy opportunities and challenges (INSAR, 2022), aims to prevent, reduce, and improve interactions between autistic individuals and the criminal justice system. This policy statement provides a foundation for considering how to include language in these important aims. In this commentary, we outline the centrality of language skills to these interactions and provide specific recommendations that can inform future research and provide guidance for autistic individuals, community partners, and individuals working within the criminal justice system. Considering language as a part of justice system policy for autistic individuals will result in greater equity and inclusion, particularly for autistic individuals with co-occurring language deficits and those who are linguistically diverse. Moreover, it will allow autistic individuals to combat other barriers to effectively navigating interactions with the criminal justice system, such as those related to the core features of autism. We advocate for a greater role for service providers who can assess challenges in language skills, and identify the specific accommodations each autistic individual will need to prevent, reduce, and improve interactions with the criminal justice system.

Abilities and Disabilities Among Children With Developmental Language Disorder

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to situate developmental language disorder (DLD) within the impairment and disability framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF); describe the functional strengths and weaknesses of a cohort of first-grade children with DLD and their peers; and explore the ways that language-related disabilities relate to language impairment, developmental risk, and receipt of language services.

METHOD

We queried the caregivers of 35 children with DLD and 44 peers with typical language development about their children's language-related functions, developmental risks, and language services using mixed quantitative and qualitative methods.

RESULTS

The children with DLD presented with weaknesses in domains that are highly dependent upon language skill, including communication, community function, interpersonal relationships, and academics. They presented with strengths in domestic and personal aspects of daily living, play and coping aspects of socialization, and gross motor function. Caregivers of children with DLD expressed pride in their children's agentive and prosocial qualities. Consistent with the ICF, what distinguished children with DLD who had functional weaknesses and disabilities from those who had healthy function was not the severity of language impairment as measured by decontextualized tests of language skill, but the presence of cumulative developmental risks. Compared to those with healthy function, a larger portion of children with weaknesses and disabilities were receiving language services; however, two girls who had disabilities despite mild levels of impairment were without services.

CONCLUSIONS

Children with DLD present with predictable strengths and weaknesses in everyday language-related functioning. For some children, the weaknesses are mild, but for others, they limit function to a greater extent and should be considered disabilities. The severity of language impairment is not a strong indicator of language-related function and, therefore, is not a good metric for determining service qualification.

Speech/Language Impairment or Specific Learning Disability? Examining the Usage of Educational Categories

PURPOSE

Developmental language disorder (DLD) is a lifelong condition that when impacting educational performance is identified and serviced through U.S. schools as outlined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. A few examples of educational categories that refer to DLD are (a) speech or language impairment (S/LI) and (b) specific learning disability (SLD). In this research note, we aim to examine trends in how these categories are assigned.

METHOD

We analyzed publicly available data released by the U.S. Department of Education from six school years between 2010 and 2020. We examined the use of S/LI and SLD categories across students of different ages at the U.S. national and state levels.

RESULTS

We present a trend in which younger students tend to be identified with the S/LI category, whereas older students tend to be identified with the SLD category. This trend is evident in all 6 years of data analyzed at the national level, and in 49 of 50 states.

CONCLUSIONS

We discuss these findings in the context of research on language disorders to explain this trend. We highlight the potential damaging effects of using inconsistent terminology, including affecting the services for which students with DLD qualify and causing confusion for their parents and educators.

Speech-language disorder severity, academic success, and socioemotional functioning among multilingual and English children in the United States: The National Survey of Children's Health

Research points to negative associations between educational success, socioemotional functioning, and the severity of symptoms in some speech-language disorders (SLDs). Nonetheless, the majority of studies examining SLDs in children have focused on monolinguals. More research is needed to determine whether the scant findings among multilinguals are robust. The present study used parent report data from the U.S. National Survey of Children's Health (2018 to 2020) to gain a better understanding of the impacts of SLD severity on indicators of academic success and socioemotional functioning among multilingual (n = 255) and English monolingual (n = 5,952) children with SLDs. Tests of between-group differences indicated that multilingual children evidenced more severe SLDs, had lower school engagement, and had lower reports of flourishing than English monolingual children with SLDs. Further, a greater proportion of multilingual children with SLDs missed more school days than English monolinguals. However, multilinguals were less likely to bully others or have been bullied than monolinguals. While the previous between-group differences were statistically significant, they were small (vs ≤ 0.08). Increased SLD severity predicted an increased number of repeated school grades, increased absenteeism, and decreased school engagement, when age and socioeconomic status were controlled. Increased SLD severity also predicted greater difficulty making and keeping friends and decreased flourishing. The effect of SLD severity on being bullied was statistically significant for the monolinguals but not multilinguals. There was a statistically significant interaction for SLD severity and sex for school engagement and difficulty making and keeping friends for monolinguals but not multilinguals. The interactions indicated that school engagement decreased more for females than for males while difficulties making and keeping friends increased more for males than females as one's SLD severity increased. While some findings were specific to monolinguals, tests of measurement invariance indicated that the same general pattern of relations among the variables were evident across the groups of multilinguals and monolinguals. These final findings can inform the interpretation of the results from both the current and future studies, while the overall findings can inform the development of intervention programs, thereby improving the long-term academic and socioemotional outcomes of children with SLDs.

Investigating Narrative Performance in Children With Developmental Language Disorder: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

PURPOSE

Narrative assessment is one potentially underutilized and inconsistent method speech-language pathologists may use when considering a diagnosis of developmental language disorder (DLD). However, narration research encompasses many varied methodologies. This systematic review and meta-analysis aimed to (a) investigate how various narrative assessment types (e.g., macrostructure, microstructure, and internal state language) differentiate children with typical development (TD) from children with DLD, (b) identify specific narrative assessment measures that result in greater group differences, and (c) evaluate participant and sample characteristics that may influence performance differences.

METHOD

Electronic databases (PsycINFO, ERIC, and PubMed) and ASHAWire were searched on July 30, 2019, to locate studies that reported oral narrative language measures for both DLD and TD groups between ages 4 and 12 years; studies focusing on written narration or other developmental disorders only were excluded. We extracted data related to sample participants, narrative task(s) and assessment measures, and research design. Group differences were quantified using standardized mean differences. Analyses used mixed-effects meta-regression with robust variance estimation to account for effect size dependencies.

RESULTS

Searches identified 37 eligible studies published between 1987 and 2019, including 382 effect sizes. Overall meta-analysis showed that children with DLD had decreased narrative performance relative to TD peers, with an overall average effect of -0.82 SD, 95% confidence interval [-0.99, -0.66]. Effect sizes showed significant heterogeneity both between and within studies, even after accounting for effect size-, sample-, and study-level predictors. Across model specifications, grammatical accuracy (microstructure) and story grammar (macrostructure) yielded the most consistent evidence of TD-DLD group differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Present findings suggest some narrative assessment measures yield significantly different performance between children with and without DLD. However, researchers need to improve consistency of inclusionary criteria, descriptions of sample characteristics, and reporting of correlations between measures to determine which assessment measures reliably distinguish between groups.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21200380.

Access to Speech and Language Services and Service Providers for Children With Speech and Language Disorders

OBJECTIVES

The purposes of this study were to (a) examine children's access to services for their speech and language disorders during their lifetimes; (b) identify any child, disorder, and family characteristics associated with access to services; and (c) describe the speech and language service providers among children who received care.

STUDY DESIGN

Data from the 2012 National Health Interview Survey were used for this retrospective cohort study. Our sample included 491 children (ages 3;0-17;11 [years;months]) with speech disorders and 333 children with language disorders. We measured the receipt of services for speech or language difficulties (main outcome) and the type of professional providing services (secondary outcome). We examined associations between services and child, disorder, and family characteristics.

RESULTS

Approximately 75% of children with speech and language disorders had ever received services for their difficulties. Privately insured children and children with co-occurring conditions were more likely to receive services than their peers who were uninsured (speech: 6.1 [1.7,21.3]; language: 6.6 [1.3,32.9]) and had no co-occurring conditions (speech: 2.1 [1.2,3.9]; language: 2.9 [1.5,5.5]). Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) were the most commonly reported provider of services (speech: 68%, language: 60%) followed by early interventionists.

CONCLUSIONS

Most children with speech and language disorders received services. However, disparities existed by race/ethnicity, health insurance type, co-occurring diagnoses, and disorder duration (speech only). Most children who received services were being provided with care by the experts of speech and language: SLPs. Updated population-based data and implementation studies are needed to document speech and language screening, referral, and access to services.

SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19799389.

Examining the Associations Between Parent Concerns and School-Age Children's Language and Reading Abilities: A Comparison of Samples Recruited for In-School Versus Online Participation

PURPOSE

The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between parent concerns about children's oral language, reading, and related skills and their children's performance on standardized assessments of language and reading, with a particular focus on whether those relationships differed between children recruited for in-school versus online participation.

METHOD

This study used data from a larger, longitudinal project focused on children with and without developmental language disorder (DLD) and/or dyslexia. The "in-school" sample (n = 133) completed assessments in-person before school closures, and the "online" sample (n = 84) recruited via advertisements completed assessments online. Parents completed a checklist of concerns. All children completed norm-referenced assessments of language and reading.

RESULTS

The two recruitment strategies yielded samples that differed in racial diversity (higher in the in-school sample), caregiver education levels (higher in the online sample), and word reading test scores (higher in the online sample). Parents in both samples reported higher levels of concerns about literacy skills than oral language skills, and the correlation between parent concerns about literacy and children's word reading test scores was stronger than the correlation between parent concerns about oral language and children's language test scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Researchers and clinicians should be aware of how recruitment strategies and assessment modalities (e.g., in-person vs. tele-assessment) may impact participation in studies and clinical service. A reliance on parent concerns about oral language to prompt a language evaluation may contribute to low rates of identification of children who meet criteria for DLD. Future research can consider parent concerns about literacy, attention, and executive functions as indicators of a need for language evaluation, especially considering the high comorbidity between language and other developmental disorders.

Comparison of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Screening Test Risk Subtest to Two Other Screeners for Low-Income Prekindergartners Who Speak African American English and Live in the Urban South

Purpose We compared the Risk subtest of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Screening Test (DELV-Screening Test Risk) with two other screeners when administered to low-income prekindergartners (pre-K) who spoke African American English (AAE) in the urban South. Method Participants were 73 children (six with a communication disorder and 67 without) enrolled in Head Start or a publicly funded pre-K in an urban Southern city. All children completed the DELV-Screening Test Risk, the Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test-Second Edition (FLUHARTY-2), and the Washington and Craig Language Screener (WCLS). Test order was counterbalanced across participants. Results DELV-Screening Test Risk error scores were higher than those reported for its standardization sample, and scores on the other screeners were lower than their respective standardization/testing samples. The 52% fail rate of the DELV-Screening Test Risk did not differ significantly from the 48% rate of the WCLS. Fail rates of the FLUHARTY-2 ranged from 34% to 75%, depending on the quotient considered and whether scoring was modified for dialect. Although items and subtests assumed to measure similar constructs were correlated to each other, the three screeners led to inconsistent pass/fail outcomes for 44% of the children. Conclusions Like other screeners, the DELV-Screening Test Risk subtest may lead to high fail rates for low-income pre-K children who speak AAE in the urban South. Inconsistent outcomes across screeners underscore the critical need for more study and development of screeners within the field.

Examining the Role of Physical Activity on Word Learning in School-Aged Children

Purpose Previous studies show that there is increased brain activity after exercise, leading to improved word recall in adults. The aim of this study was to examine whether different types of exercise (i.e., aerobic vs. anaerobic) may also lead to improved performance during vocabulary learning in children. Method A total of 48 participants (24 in Experiment 1 and 24 in Experiment 2) between the ages of 6 and 12 years completed a word learning task. Training of words took place in a resting and in an exercise condition using a within-subject design. In the resting measure, children were taught names of novel objects and then colored for 3 min before being tested on their ability to recognize the words. In the exercise condition, the same steps were followed, but instead of coloring, children engaged in 3 min of either aerobic exercise (i.e., swimming in Experiment 1) or anaerobic exercise (i.e., a CrossFit-like workout in Experiment 2). Results In Experiment 1, accuracy of word recognition was significantly higher for words that were trained in the aerobic exercise compared to the resting condition. In Experiment 2, there was no significant difference in performance between the anaerobic exercise and resting conditions. Conclusions These findings suggest that previously identified benefits of exercise on language abilities in adults also extend to school-aged children. However, not all types of physical activity lead to this boost in performance, as only aerobic (but not anaerobic) exercise improved children's ability to acquire new word-object relations. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14462187.

A meta-analysis on the effectiveness of intervention in children with primary speech and language delays/disorders: Focusing on China and the United States

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the immediate and long-term effects of intervention for children with primary speech and language delays/disorders and to explore whether some characteristics of interventions, specifics of the study and research participants moderate the magnitude of the effectiveness of interventions. Using the random effect model, we pooled the effect size and conducted a publication bias evaluation, a moderating effect analysis in CMA 2.0. Results of a random effects model analysis demonstrated a moderate immediate effect (g = 0.70), whereas the long-term efficacy was small (g = 0.23). Additionally, type of measure, language of intervention, parental involvement, intervention content and study quality, as well as the duration of intervention, significantly moderated the effect size of intervention effectiveness.

Promoting Reading Achievement in Children With Developmental Language Disorders: What Can We Learn From Research on Specific Language Impairment and Dyslexia?

Purpose Specific language impairment (SLI; see also developmental language disorder) and dyslexia are separate, yet frequently co-occurring disorders that confer risks to reading comprehension and academic achievement. Until recently, most studies of one disorder had little consideration of the other, and each disorder was addressed by different practitioners. However, understanding how the two disorders relate to each other is important for advancing theories about each disorder and improving reading comprehension and academic achievement. The purpose of this clinical focus article is to integrate research on SLI and dyslexia as well as advocate for the consideration of comorbidities in future research and clinical practice. Method The first section reviews definitions as well as inclusionary and exclusionary criteria for SLI and dyslexia. The second section reviews research demonstrating that SLI and dyslexia are different disorders that often co-occur. Studies examining language, working memory, and academic achievement in children with separate versus co-occurring SLI and dyslexia are reviewed. The final section compares and contrasts school identification frameworks for children with SLI and dyslexia and considers the potential benefits of incorporating broad language skills into response to intervention (RTI) assessment frameworks. Conclusions Children with weak language skills are at a high risk of experiencing reading problems, but language difficulties are often hidden from view. Directly addressing language skills within school RTI frameworks can help improve the identification and treatment of children with SLI and dyslexia as well as support improved reading comprehension and academic achievement for all students. Presentation Video https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.13063793.

Narrative Language Markers of Arabic Language Development and Impairment

Purpose We examined indices of narrative microstructure as metrics of language development and impairment in Arabic-speaking children. We examined their age sensitivity, correlations with standardized measures, and ability to differentiate children with average language and language impairment. Method We collected story narratives from 177 children (54.2% boys) between 3.08 and 10.92 years old (M = 6.25, SD = 1.67) divided into six age bands. Each child also received standardized measures of spoken language (Receptive and Expressive Vocabulary, Sentence Imitation, and Pseudoword Repetition). Several narrative indices of microstructure were examined in each age band. Children were divided into (suspected) developmental language disorder and typical language groups using the standardized test scores and compared on the narrative indicators. Sensitivity and specificity of the narrative indicators that showed group differences were calculated. Results The measures that showed age sensitivity included subject omission error rate, number of object clitics, correct use of subject-verb agreement, and mean length of utterance in words. The developmental language disorder group scored higher on subject omission errors (Cohen's d = 0.55) and lower on correct use of subject-verb agreement (Cohen's d = 0.48) than the typical language group. The threshold for impaired performance with the highest combination of specificity and sensitivity was 35th percentile. Conclusions Several indices of narrative microstructure appear to be valid metrics for documenting language development in children acquiring Gulf Arabic. Subject omission errors and correct use of subject-verb agreement differentiate children with typical and atypical levels of language development.

How We Fail Children With Developmental Language Disorder

Purpose For over two decades, we have known that children with developmental language disorder (DLD) are underserved. We have also known that DLD does not attract the research attention that it merits given its prevalence and impact. The purposes of this clinical focus article are to present evidence that these failures continue, explore the reasons behind these failures, and propose solutions. Method I reviewed the literature and applied bibliometric analysis procedures from Bishop (2010) to quantify research efforts aimed at DLD compared to other neurodevelopmental disorders. Results The percentage of children who are deemed eligible for clinical services because of DLD continues to fall well short of estimates based on the prevalence of DLD in community samples. The amount of research conducted on DLD relative to other neurodevelopmental disorders remains low. Contributing factors include a lack of awareness of DLD, the hidden nature of DLD, entrenched policies, and the dissonance created when speech-language pathologists must diagnose DLD in school settings. Conclusions Expanded approaches to supporting children with DLD are required. These might include engagement in advocacy and awareness campaigns; clearer communication with the families we serve and enhanced collaborations with classroom teachers; the implementation of school-based language screenings; participation in policymaking; and the development of service delivery models that operate alongside those that exist in our schools and complement their function. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12743273.

Do Children With Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) Have Difficulties With Interference Control, Visuospatial Working Memory, and Selective Attention? Developmental Patterns and the Role of Severity and Persistence of DLD

Purpose Many children with developmental language disorder (DLD) have weaknesses in executive functioning (EF), specifically in tasks testing interference control and working memory. It is unknown how EF develops in children with DLD, if EF abilities are related to DLD severity and persistence, and if EF weaknesses expand to selective attention. This study aimed to address these gaps. Method Data from 78 children with DLD and 39 typically developing (TD) children were collected at three times with 1-year intervals. At Time 1, the children were 5 or 6 years old. Flanker, Dot Matrix, and Sky Search tasks tested interference control, visuospatial working memory, and selective attention, respectively. DLD severity was based on children's language ability. DLD persistence was based on stability of the DLD diagnosis. Results Performance on all tasks improved in both groups. TD children outperformed children with DLD on interference control. No differences were found for visuospatial working memory and selective attention. An interference control gap between the DLD and TD groups emerged between Time 1 and Time 2. Severity and persistence of DLD were related to interference control and working memory; the impact on working memory was stronger. Selective attention was unrelated to DLD severity and persistence. Conclusions Age and DLD severity and persistence determine whether or not children with DLD show EF weaknesses. Interference control is most clearly impaired in children with DLD who are 6 years and older. Visuospatial working memory is impaired in children with severe and persistent DLD. Selective attention is spared.

Diagnosis of Developmental Language Disorder in Research Studies

Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which researchers in the field of developmental language disorder are utilizing validated methods to diagnose their research participants. Method We examined 90 research articles published from 2015 to 2019 that included English-speaking participants from the United States who were identified as having a developmental language disorder or specific language impairment. From these articles, we identified the tests and measures used to identify participants and classify them as healthy or impaired. We then consulted the test manuals and the literature to find information on sensitivity and specificity of the test and the evidence-based cut score that maximized identification accuracy. Results Of the 90 articles examined, 38 (42%) were found to reflect validated diagnostic methods, and 51 (58%) did not. Conclusion Our results illustrate that validated methods are used less than half of the time even by those who should have a high level of expertise and despite calls for increasing scientific rigor in research practices.

Developmental Language Disorder: Applications for Advocacy, Research, and Clinical Service

Purpose

The CATALISE group (Bishop, Snowling, Thompson, Greenhalgh, & CATALISE Consortium, 2016; Bishop, Snowling, Thompson, Greenhalgh, & CATALISE-2 Consortium, 2017) recommended that the termdevelopmental language disorder(DLD) be used to refer to neurodevelopmental language deficit. In this tutorial, we explain the appropriate application of the term and present advantages in adhering to the CATALISE recommendations.

Conclusion

Both specific language impairment and DLD refer to a neurodevelopmental condition that impairs spoken language, is long-standing and, is not associated with any known causal condition. The applications of the termsspecific language impairmentandDLDdiffer in breadth and the extent to which identification depends upon functional impact. Use of the termDLDwould link advocacy efforts in the United States to those in other English-speaking countries. The criteria for identifying DLD presented in the CATALISE consensus offer opportunities for scientific progress while aligning well with practice in U.S. public schools.

If we don't look, we won't see: Measuring language development to inform literacy instruction

Oral language abilities enable children to learn to read, and they predict future academic achievement and life outcomes. However, children with language impairment frequently go unidentified because schools do not systematically measure oral language development. Given that identification paves the way for treatment, schools should increase attention to oral language development, particularly within response to intervention (RTI) frameworks, which aim to prevent learning disabilities by identifying and intervening at early stages. Formal schooling should address language comprehension (in addition to word reading) to ensure an adequate foundation for future reading comprehension. In support, we overview the developmental relations between oral language abilities and reading skills, review current school-based assessment frameworks, and discuss how these frameworks can include language assessments. Measuring language skills early and often benefits not only those who have language impairment but also all children, as it documents language variability to inform differentiated instruction.

Diagnostic Accuracy of Sentence Recall and Past Tense Measures for Identifying Children's Language Impairments

Purpose Measures of linguistic processing and grammatical proficiency represent strong candidates for adaptation into language screeners for early elementary students. One key barrier, however, has been the lack of consensus around the preferred reference standard for assigning affected status. Diagnostic accuracies associated with sentence recall and past tense marking index measures were examined relative to 5 different reference standards of language impairment: receipt of language services, clinically significant levels of parental concern, low performance on language measures, a composite requiring at least 2 of these indicators, and a composite requiring convergence across all indicators. Method One thousand sixty grade K-3 students participated in school-based language screenings. All students who failed the screenings and a random sampling of those who passed were invited to participate in confirmatory assessments. The community-based sample was supplemented by a clinical sample of 58 students receiving services for language impairment. Two hundred fifty-four students participated in confirmatory testing. Examiners were naive to participants' status. Results Diagnostic accuracies for the sentence recall and past tense marking index measures varied across the different reference standards (areas under receiver operating characteristic curves: .67-.95). Higher levels of convergence occurred with reference standards based on behavioral measures. When affected status was defined by receipt of services and/or parental ratings, cases presented with higher levels of performance on the language measures than when affected status was based on behavioral criteria. Conclusion These results provide additional support for the adaptation of sentence recall and past tense marking to screen for language impairments in early elementary students. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.8285786.

Identifying Children at Risk for Developmental Language Disorder Using a Brief, Whole-Classroom Screen

Purpose The aim of this study was to determine whether parents of children with developmental language disorder (DLD) were aware of their children's language difficulties and whether a brief, classroom-based language screen can reliably identify children at risk for DLD, including those with both good and poor word reading skills. Method First- and second-grade students ( N = 97) completed a language screen and assessments of nonverbal intelligence, word reading, and language designed for linguistically diverse students. Their parents completed a questionnaire. Results Few parents of children with DLD reported that their child had ever received speech, language, reading, or other educational services. Parents of children with DLD with average word reading skills reported receiving services approximately half as often as children with DLD with poor word reading. Parents of children with DLD also reported few concerns about their children's speech, language, and academic development. The brief whole-classroom screen showed acceptable classification accuracy for identifying children with DLD overall, although sensitivity was lower for children with DLD with average word reading skills. Conclusion Based on reports of prior services and concerns, many parents of children with DLD appear to be unaware of their children's difficulty with oral language. Whole-classroom screens for language show potential for efficient identification of children who may benefit from comprehensive assessments for DLD without relying on their parents or teachers to raise concerns.