↓ Skip to main content

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

Overview of attention for article published in Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, March 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
3 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
170 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
wikipedia
4 Wikipedia pages
reddit
1 Redditor

Citations

dimensions_citation
920 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
1257 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology
Published in
Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry, March 2017
DOI 10.1111/jcpp.12721
Pubmed ID
Authors

Dorothy V.M. Bishop, Margaret J. Snowling, Paul A. Thompson, Trisha Greenhalgh, Catherine Adams, Lisa Archibald, Gillian Baird, Ann Bauer, Jude Bellair, Christopher Boyle, Elizabeth Brownlie, Glenn Carter, Becky Clark, Judy Clegg, Nancy Cohen, Gina Conti‐Ramsden, Julie Dockrell, Janet Dunn, Susan Ebbels, Aoife Gallagher, Simon Gibbs, Emma Gore‐Langton, Mandy Grist, Mary Hartshorne, Alison Hüneke, Marc Joanisse, Sally Kedge, Thomas Klee, Saloni Krishnan, Linda Lascelles, James Law, Laurence Leonard, Stephanie Lynham, Elina Mainela Arnold, Narad Mathura, Elspeth McCartney, Cristina McKean, Brigid McNeill, Angela Morgan, Carol‐Anne Murphy, Courtenay Norbury, Anne O'Hare, Janis Oram Cardy, Ciara O'Toole, Rhea Paul, Suzanne Purdy, Sean Redmond, Laida Restrepo, Mabel Rice, Vicky Slonims, Pamela Snow, Jane Speake, Sarah Spencer, Helen Stringer, Helen Tager‐Flusberg, Rosemary Tannock, Cate Taylor, Bruce Tomblin, Joanne Volden, Marleen Westerveld, Andrew house

Abstract

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

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 170 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 1,257 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 1 <1%
Unknown 1256 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 182 14%
Student > Bachelor 181 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 124 10%
Researcher 87 7%
Student > Doctoral Student 56 4%
Other 193 15%
Unknown 434 35%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 195 16%
Nursing and Health Professions 167 13%
Linguistics 142 11%
Social Sciences 78 6%
Medicine and Dentistry 45 4%
Other 140 11%
Unknown 490 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 162. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 March 2024.
All research outputs
#255,692
of 26,017,215 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry
#98
of 3,387 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,365
of 327,313 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry
#5
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,017,215 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 98th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,387 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 23.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 327,313 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.