Abstract
An erratum was issued for: Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting. The tables in the Representative Results section were updated.
The tables in the Representative Results section were updated from:
| Participant (n=42) | Topic Rating | ||||||||||
| Identification | Assessment/ diagnosis | Bilingualism | Lifelong impact | Provision- primary | Provision- secondary | Provision- adults | Intervention | Working with others | Raising awareness | Technology | |
| 1 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 8 | |||
| 2 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 | |||
| 3 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 11 | 3 |
| 4 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 11 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
| 5 | 7 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| 6 | 10 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 11 | 1 |
| 7 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
| 8 | 10 | 1 | 6 | 11 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 3 |
| 9 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 8 |
| 10 | 1 | 4 | 11 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 7 |
| 11 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 7 |
| 12 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 8 | 5 | 4 |
| 13 | 2 | 3 | 11 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 5 | 9 | 1 |
| 14 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 11 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 5 |
| 15 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 2 | ||
| 16 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | |
| 17 | 11 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 10 | 4 | 5 |
| 18 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 10 | |
| 19 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 20 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 7 |
| 21 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 6 | |
| 22 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | |||||
| 23 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 | ||||||
| 24 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | ||||
| 25 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 10 | 8 |
| 26 | 10 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 27 | 10 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 1 | |
| 28 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 9 | 6 | 7 | |
| 29 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 9 | 8 | 1 | |
| 30 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 6 | |
| 31 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 9 |
| 32 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 5 |
| 33 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 5 |
| 34 | 9 | 10 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 1 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 10 | 10 |
| 35 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 1 |
| 36 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 8 | 6 |
| 37 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| 38 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 5 | ||
| 39 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 10 | 10 | ||
| 40 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 9 | ||
| 41 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 1 | ||
| 42 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 8 | ||
| Corrector value | 26 | 16 | 14 | 24 | 23 | 15 | 15 | 24 | 13 | 20 | 12 |
Table 3: Unadjusted and adjusted top ten research priorities lists. Table to show the top ten research priorities without adjustment (left column) and with adjustment (right column). * depict defined research areas which are not represented in the top ten of the other columns (i.e., where priorities were different).
to:
| Participant (n=42) | Topic Rating | ||||||||||
| Identification | Assessment/ diagnosis | Bilingualism | Lifelong impact | Provision- primary | Provision- secondary | Provision- adults | Intervention | Working with others | Raising awareness | Technology | |
| 1 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 8 | |||
| 2 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 | |||
| 3 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 11 | 3 |
| 4 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 11 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
| 5 | 7 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| 6 | 10 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 11 | 1 |
| 7 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
| 8 | 10 | 1 | 6 | 11 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 3 |
| 9 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 8 |
| 10 | 1 | 4 | 11 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 7 |
| 11 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 7 |
| 12 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 8 | 5 | 4 |
| 13 | 2 | 3 | 11 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 5 | 9 | 1 |
| 14 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 11 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 5 |
| 15 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 2 | ||
| 16 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | |
| 17 | 11 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 10 | 4 | 5 |
| 18 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 10 | |
| 19 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 20 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 7 |
| 21 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 6 | |
| 22 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | |||||
| 23 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 | ||||||
| 24 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | ||||
| 25 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 10 | 8 |
| 26 | 10 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 27 | 10 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 1 | |
| 28 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 9 | 6 | 7 | |
| 29 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 9 | 8 | 1 | |
| 30 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 6 | |
| 31 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 9 |
| 32 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 5 |
| 33 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 5 |
| 34 | 9 | 10 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 1 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 10 | 10 |
| 35 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 1 |
| 36 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 8 | 6 |
| 37 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| 38 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 5 | ||
| 39 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 10 | 10 | ||
| 40 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 9 | ||
| 41 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 1 | ||
| 42 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 8 | ||
| Corrector value | 26 | 16 | 14 | 24 | 23 | 15 | 15 | 24 | 13 | 20 | 12 |
Table 1: Topic ratings from all iDLD/iDLDPC participants with corrector values. Corrector value = frequency of topic rated above 7 (identified as cut-off). Corrector values transform survey data to integrate iDLD/iDLDPC data. Ratings above cut-off are in bold-italic. Blank spaces indicate topics not discussed or rated by iDLD/iDLDPC.
| Research topic | Survey score | Topic Corrector Values |
Final score | ||||
| Specific characteristics of evidence-based DLD interventions which facilitate progress towards the goals of an individual with DLD | 462 | Intervention | 486 | ||||
| 24 | |||||||
| Effective tools to assist accurate diagnosis of DLD in early years children with significant SLCN | 418 | Assessment/diagnosis | 434 | ||||
| 16 | |||||||
| Implementation of SLT recommendations in the classroom by teaching staff: confidence levels, capacity, capability and levels of success | 441 | Working with others | 454 | ||||
| 13 | |||||||
| Effective ways of teaching self-help strategies to children with DLD | 414 | Intervention | 438 | ||||
| 24 | |||||||
| Effective interventions for improving receptive language in terms of intervention characteristics and mode of delivery | 434 | Intervention | 458 | ||||
| 24 | |||||||
| Impact of including speech, language and communication needs (SLCN)/ developmental language disorder (DLD) in teacher training course curriculums on referral rates and level of support for children with DLD | 409 | Working with others | Identification | 448 | |||
| 13 | 26 | ||||||
| Effectiveness of a face-to-face versus indirect approach to intervention for individuals with DLD | 417 | Provision- primary | Provision- secondary | Provision- adult | 470 | ||
| 23 | 15 | 15 | |||||
| Outcomes for individuals with DLD across settings (e.g. language provision, mainstream school), in relation to curriculum access, language development and social skills | 415 | Lifelong impact | Provision- primary | Provision- secondary | 477 | ||
| 24 | 23 | 15 | |||||
| Impact of SLT interventions for adolescents and adults with DLD, on wider functional outcomes (e.g. quality of life, access to the curriculum, social inclusion and mental health) | 392 | Lifelong impact | Intervention | 440 | |||
| 24 | 24 | ||||||
| Impact of targeted vocabulary interventions for individuals with DLD on curriculum access | 410 | Intervention | 434 | ||||
| 24 | |||||||
Table 2: Top ten research topics from survey with unadjusted scores, with application of corrector values and adjusted scores. Each defined research area is assigned to one or more topic, and adjusted proportionately. The final column indicates final score which is used to identify top ten highest scoring research priorities
| Rank | Unadjusted top ten research priorities (Correctors not applied, survey data only) |
Adjusted top ten research priorities (Corrector values applied) |
||||
| 1 | Specific characteristics of evidence-based DLD interventions which facilitate progress towards the goals of an individual with DLD | Outcomes for individuals with DLD across settings (e.g. language provision, mainstream school), in relation to curriculum access, language development and social skills | ||||
| 2 | Effective tools to assist accurate diagnosis of DLD in early years children with significant SLCN* | Specific characteristics of evidence-based DLD interventions which facilitate progress towards the goals of an individual with DLD | ||||
| 3 | Implementation of SLT recommendations in the classroom by teaching staff: confidence levels, capacity, capability and levels of success | Effectiveness of a face-to-face versus indirect approach to intervention for individuals with DLD | ||||
| 4 | Effective ways of teaching self-help strategies to children with DLD | Effective interventions for improving receptive language in terms of intervention characteristics and mode of delivery | ||||
| 5 | Effective interventions for improving receptive language in terms of intervention characteristics and mode of delivery (402) | Impact of including speech, language and communication needs (SLCN)/ developmental language disorder (DLD) in teacher training course curriculums on referral rates and level of support for children with DLD | ||||
| 6 | Impact of including speech, language and communication needs (SLCN)/ developmental language disorder (DLD) in teacher training course curriculums on referral rates and level of support for children with DLD | Impact of SLT interventions for adolescents and adults with DLD, on wider functional outcomes (e.g. quality of life, access to the curriculum, social inclusion and mental health)* | ||||
| 7 | Effectiveness of a face-to-face versus indirect approach to intervention for individuals with DLD | Implementation of SLT recommendations in the classroom by teaching staff: confidence levels, capacity, capability and levels of success | ||||
| 8 | Outcomes for individuals with DLD across settings (e.g. language provision, mainstream school), in relation to curriculum access, language development and social skills | Effective ways of teaching self-help strategies to children with DLD | ||||
| 9 | Impact of SLT interventions for adolescents and adults with DLD, on wider functional outcomes (e.g. quality of life, access to the curriculum, social inclusion and mental health) | Impact of targeted vocabulary interventions for individuals with DLD on curriculum access | ||||
| 10 | Impact of targeted vocabulary interventions for individuals with DLD on curriculum access | Impact of teacher training (on specific strategies/ language support) on academic attainment in adolescents with DLD in secondary schools | ||||
Table 3: Unadjusted and adjusted top ten research priorities lists. Table to show the top ten research priorities without adjustment (left column) and with adjustment (right column). * depict defined research areas which are not represented in the top ten of the other columns (i.e., where priorities were different).
Protocol
An erratum was issued for: Involving Individuals with Developmental Language Disorder and their Parents/Carers in Research Priority Setting. The tables in the Representative Results section were updated.
The tables in the Representative Results section were updated from:
| Participant (n=42) | Topic Rating | ||||||||||
| Identification | Assessment/ diagnosis | Bilingualism | Lifelong impact | Provision- primary | Provision- secondary | Provision- adults | Intervention | Working with others | Raising awareness | Technology | |
| 1 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 8 | |||
| 2 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 | |||
| 3 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 11 | 3 |
| 4 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 11 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
| 5 | 7 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| 6 | 10 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 11 | 1 |
| 7 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
| 8 | 10 | 1 | 6 | 11 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 3 |
| 9 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 8 |
| 10 | 1 | 4 | 11 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 7 |
| 11 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 7 |
| 12 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 8 | 5 | 4 |
| 13 | 2 | 3 | 11 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 5 | 9 | 1 |
| 14 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 11 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 5 |
| 15 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 2 | ||
| 16 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | |
| 17 | 11 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 10 | 4 | 5 |
| 18 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 10 | |
| 19 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 20 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 7 |
| 21 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 6 | |
| 22 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | |||||
| 23 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 | ||||||
| 24 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | ||||
| 25 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 10 | 8 |
| 26 | 10 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 27 | 10 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 1 | |
| 28 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 9 | 6 | 7 | |
| 29 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 9 | 8 | 1 | |
| 30 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 6 | |
| 31 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 9 |
| 32 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 5 |
| 33 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 5 |
| 34 | 9 | 10 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 1 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 10 | 10 |
| 35 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 1 |
| 36 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 8 | 6 |
| 37 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| 38 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 5 | ||
| 39 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 10 | 10 | ||
| 40 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 9 | ||
| 41 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 1 | ||
| 42 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 8 | ||
| Corrector value | 26 | 16 | 14 | 24 | 23 | 15 | 15 | 24 | 13 | 20 | 12 |
Table 3: Unadjusted and adjusted top ten research priorities lists. Table to show the top ten research priorities without adjustment (left column) and with adjustment (right column). * depict defined research areas which are not represented in the top ten of the other columns (i.e., where priorities were different).
to:
| Participant (n=42) | Topic Rating | ||||||||||
| Identification | Assessment/ diagnosis | Bilingualism | Lifelong impact | Provision- primary | Provision- secondary | Provision- adults | Intervention | Working with others | Raising awareness | Technology | |
| 1 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 8 | |||
| 2 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 | |||
| 3 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 9 | 8 | 2 | 1 | 7 | 5 | 11 | 3 |
| 4 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 11 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 10 | 5 | 6 | 4 |
| 5 | 7 | 11 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 2 | 4 | 1 |
| 6 | 10 | 8 | 2 | 6 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 11 | 1 |
| 7 | 1 | 2 | 10 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 3 | 8 | 11 |
| 8 | 10 | 1 | 6 | 11 | 2 | 7 | 9 | 5 | 8 | 4 | 3 |
| 9 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 7 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 8 |
| 10 | 1 | 4 | 11 | 10 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 2 | 8 | 5 | 7 |
| 11 | 1 | 2 | 11 | 8 | 3 | 9 | 10 | 4 | 6 | 5 | 7 |
| 12 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 7 | 6 | 9 | 11 | 8 | 5 | 4 |
| 13 | 2 | 3 | 11 | 6 | 4 | 7 | 8 | 10 | 5 | 9 | 1 |
| 14 | 2 | 5 | 9 | 11 | 10 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 5 |
| 15 | 6 | 3 | 5 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 8 | 4 | 2 | ||
| 16 | 10 | 8 | 3 | 6 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1 | |
| 17 | 11 | 9 | 2 | 7 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 8 | 10 | 4 | 5 |
| 18 | 8 | 9 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 10 | |
| 19 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 7 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 20 | 10 | 10 | 1 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 9 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 7 |
| 21 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 9 | 6 | 8 | 6 | |
| 22 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 5 | |||||
| 23 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 5 | 10 | ||||||
| 24 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | ||||
| 25 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 10 | 6 | 9 | 10 | 8 | 7 | 10 | 8 |
| 26 | 10 | 9 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 | |
| 27 | 10 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 6 | 5 | 4 | 8 | 7 | 1 | |
| 28 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 8 | 5 | 1 | 9 | 6 | 7 | |
| 29 | 10 | 6 | 2 | 4 | 7 | 5 | 3 | 9 | 8 | 1 | |
| 30 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 9 | 8 | 4 | 5 | 4 | 3 | 6 | |
| 31 | 10 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 9 | 8 | 9 |
| 32 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 9 | 10 | 5 |
| 33 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 8 | 10 | 7 | 10 | 8 | 9 | 5 |
| 34 | 9 | 10 | 6 | 8 | 10 | 1 | 7 | 10 | 4 | 10 | 10 |
| 35 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 10 | 9 | 7 | 5 | 10 | 1 | 10 | 1 |
| 36 | 11 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 11 | 8 | 6 |
| 37 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 | 10 |
| 38 | 7 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 5 | 6 | 4 | 10 | 5 | ||
| 39 | 10 | 5 | 5 | 6 | 8 | 9 | 6 | 10 | 10 | ||
| 40 | 7 | 3 | 7 | 8 | 7 | 8 | 6 | 6 | 9 | ||
| 41 | 8 | 5 | 4 | 6 | 8 | 6 | 7 | 5 | 1 | ||
| 42 | 8 | 5 | 5 | 5 | 8 | 5 | 7 | 5 | 8 | ||
| Corrector value | 26 | 16 | 14 | 24 | 23 | 15 | 15 | 24 | 13 | 20 | 12 |
Table 1: Topic ratings from all iDLD/iDLDPC participants with corrector values. Corrector value = frequency of topic rated above 7 (identified as cut-off). Corrector values transform survey data to integrate iDLD/iDLDPC data. Ratings above cut-off are in bold-italic. Blank spaces indicate topics not discussed or rated by iDLD/iDLDPC.
| Research topic | Survey score | Topic Corrector Values |
Final score | ||||
| Specific characteristics of evidence-based DLD interventions which facilitate progress towards the goals of an individual with DLD | 462 | Intervention | 486 | ||||
| 24 | |||||||
| Effective tools to assist accurate diagnosis of DLD in early years children with significant SLCN | 418 | Assessment/diagnosis | 434 | ||||
| 16 | |||||||
| Implementation of SLT recommendations in the classroom by teaching staff: confidence levels, capacity, capability and levels of success | 441 | Working with others | 454 | ||||
| 13 | |||||||
| Effective ways of teaching self-help strategies to children with DLD | 414 | Intervention | 438 | ||||
| 24 | |||||||
| Effective interventions for improving receptive language in terms of intervention characteristics and mode of delivery | 434 | Intervention | 458 | ||||
| 24 | |||||||
| Impact of including speech, language and communication needs (SLCN)/ developmental language disorder (DLD) in teacher training course curriculums on referral rates and level of support for children with DLD | 409 | Working with others | Identification | 448 | |||
| 13 | 26 | ||||||
| Effectiveness of a face-to-face versus indirect approach to intervention for individuals with DLD | 417 | Provision- primary | Provision- secondary | Provision- adult | 470 | ||
| 23 | 15 | 15 | |||||
| Outcomes for individuals with DLD across settings (e.g. language provision, mainstream school), in relation to curriculum access, language development and social skills | 415 | Lifelong impact | Provision- primary | Provision- secondary | 477 | ||
| 24 | 23 | 15 | |||||
| Impact of SLT interventions for adolescents and adults with DLD, on wider functional outcomes (e.g. quality of life, access to the curriculum, social inclusion and mental health) | 392 | Lifelong impact | Intervention | 440 | |||
| 24 | 24 | ||||||
| Impact of targeted vocabulary interventions for individuals with DLD on curriculum access | 410 | Intervention | 434 | ||||
| 24 | |||||||
Table 2: Top ten research topics from survey with unadjusted scores, with application of corrector values and adjusted scores. Each defined research area is assigned to one or more topic, and adjusted proportionately. The final column indicates final score which is used to identify top ten highest scoring research priorities
| Rank | Unadjusted top ten research priorities (Correctors not applied, survey data only) |
Adjusted top ten research priorities (Corrector values applied) |
||||
| 1 | Specific characteristics of evidence-based DLD interventions which facilitate progress towards the goals of an individual with DLD | Outcomes for individuals with DLD across settings (e.g. language provision, mainstream school), in relation to curriculum access, language development and social skills | ||||
| 2 | Effective tools to assist accurate diagnosis of DLD in early years children with significant SLCN* | Specific characteristics of evidence-based DLD interventions which facilitate progress towards the goals of an individual with DLD | ||||
| 3 | Implementation of SLT recommendations in the classroom by teaching staff: confidence levels, capacity, capability and levels of success | Effectiveness of a face-to-face versus indirect approach to intervention for individuals with DLD | ||||
| 4 | Effective ways of teaching self-help strategies to children with DLD | Effective interventions for improving receptive language in terms of intervention characteristics and mode of delivery | ||||
| 5 | Effective interventions for improving receptive language in terms of intervention characteristics and mode of delivery (402) | Impact of including speech, language and communication needs (SLCN)/ developmental language disorder (DLD) in teacher training course curriculums on referral rates and level of support for children with DLD | ||||
| 6 | Impact of including speech, language and communication needs (SLCN)/ developmental language disorder (DLD) in teacher training course curriculums on referral rates and level of support for children with DLD | Impact of SLT interventions for adolescents and adults with DLD, on wider functional outcomes (e.g. quality of life, access to the curriculum, social inclusion and mental health)* | ||||
| 7 | Effectiveness of a face-to-face versus indirect approach to intervention for individuals with DLD | Implementation of SLT recommendations in the classroom by teaching staff: confidence levels, capacity, capability and levels of success | ||||
| 8 | Outcomes for individuals with DLD across settings (e.g. language provision, mainstream school), in relation to curriculum access, language development and social skills | Effective ways of teaching self-help strategies to children with DLD | ||||
| 9 | Impact of SLT interventions for adolescents and adults with DLD, on wider functional outcomes (e.g. quality of life, access to the curriculum, social inclusion and mental health) | Impact of targeted vocabulary interventions for individuals with DLD on curriculum access | ||||
| 10 | Impact of targeted vocabulary interventions for individuals with DLD on curriculum access | Impact of teacher training (on specific strategies/ language support) on academic attainment in adolescents with DLD in secondary schools | ||||
Table 3: Unadjusted and adjusted top ten research priorities lists. Table to show the top ten research priorities without adjustment (left column) and with adjustment (right column). * depict defined research areas which are not represented in the top ten of the other columns (i.e., where priorities were different).
Disclosures
No conflicts of interest declared.
