Study designs of evaluations included in the review
No inclusion criteria in terms of study design were specified for the review; all studies that met the other inclusion criteria were eligible.
Specific interventions included in the review
Studies on 20 instruments were eligible for inclusion in the review: three each for adult language, adult speech, child speech, and voice; and eight for child language disorders. The instruments were:
for adult language, Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination 2nd edition, Porch Index of Communicative Ability (PICA), and Western Aphasia Battery;
for adult speech, Assessment of Intelligibility in Dysarthic Speech, Dysarthia Examination Battery, and Stuttering Severity Instrument for Children and Adults 3rd edition (SSI-3);
for child speech, Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation 2nd edition, SSI-3, and Phonological Process Analysis (PPA);
for voice, GRBAS (grade, rough, breathy, asthenic, strain) Scale, Multi-dimensional Voice Profile (MDVP), and Voice Handicap Index (VHI); and
for child language disorders, Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals 3rd edition (CELF-3; Spanish edition CELF-3Sp; preschool CELF-P), Test of Language Development-Primary (or -Intermediate) 3rd Edition (TOLD-P3 and TOLD-I3), Preschool Language Scale-3 (PLS-3; Spanish edition PLS-3Sp), and Test of Pragmatic language (TOPL).
Since no studies were found on PPA and the SSI-3 was included under both adult and child instruments, studies on a total of 18 instruments were reviewed.
Reference standard test against which the new test was compared
No single reference standard was used in this review.
Participants included in the review
Studies of adults and children with speech or language disorders were reviewed.
Outcomes assessed in the review
Only studies that evaluated an instrument's reliability, validity, or ability to predict future communicative impairment and/or functioning were eligible for the review. Studies of the efficacy or effectiveness of the instruments, or that did not provide data relevant to the main questions, were excluded.
How were decisions on the relevance of primary studies made?
The most experienced reviewer screened all the articles. Only those excluded by the senior reviewer were subsequently screened by a second reviewer.