Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 11 (7), e0158753

CATALISE: A Multinational and Multidisciplinary Delphi Consensus Study. Identifying Language Impairments in Children


CATALISE: A Multinational and Multidisciplinary Delphi Consensus Study. Identifying Language Impairments in Children

D V M Bishop et al. PLoS One.

Erratum in


Delayed or impaired language development is a common developmental concern, yet there is little agreement about the criteria used to identify and classify language impairments in children. Children's language difficulties are at the interface between education, medicine and 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 possible to achieve consensus among professionals on appropriate criteria for identifying children who might benefit from specialist services. We recruited a panel of 59 experts representing ten disciplines (including education, psychology, speech-language therapy/pathology, paediatrics and 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 46 statements based on articles and commentaries in a special issue of a journal focusing on this topic. Panel members rated each statement for both relevance and validity on a seven-point scale, and added free text comments. These responses were synthesised by the first two 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 percent for 24 of 27 round 2 statements, though many respondents qualified their response with written comments. These were again synthesised by the first two authors. The resulting consensus statement is reported here, with additional summary of relevant evidence, and a concluding commentary on residual disagreements and gaps in the evidence base.

Conflict of interest statement

The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.


Fig 1
Fig 1. Flowchart showing stages in the Delphi consensus process.
S3, S4, S5, S6 refer to Supporting Information documents.
Fig 2
Fig 2. Final set of statements in precis form.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 31 PubMed Central articles

See all "Cited by" articles


    1. Bishop DVM (2014) Ten questions about terminology for children with unexplained language problems. Int J Lang Comm Disord 49: 381–415. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Dockrell JE, Lindsay G, Letchford B, Mackie C (2006) Educational provision for children with specific speech and language difficulties: perspectives of speech and language therapy service managers. Int J Lang Comm Disord 41: 423–440. - PubMed
    1. Bishop DVM, Clark B, Conti-Ramsden G, Norbury CF, Snowling MJ (2012) RALLI: An internet campaign for raising awareness of language learning impairments. Child Lang Teach Ther 28: 259–262.
    1. Ebbels S (2014) Introducing the SLI debate. Int J Lang Comm Disord 49: 377–380. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Reilly S, Tomblin B, Law J, McKean C, Mensah F, Morgan A,et al. (2014) SLI: a convenient label for whom? Int J Lang Comm Disord 49: 416–451. - PMC - PubMed

Grant support

This work was funded by Wellcome Trust ( grant 082498/Z/07/Z to DVMB.