Evaluating the CELF-5 Screening Test and Vineland-3 for Identifying Language Difficulties in Autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder.
The CELF-5 Screener and Vineland-3 miss many autistic and ADHD children with language problems, so a pass should never end the evaluation.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Mohanakumar Sindhu et al. (2025) checked two quick language tests. One is the CELF-5 Screener. The other is the Vineland-3.
They gave both tests to autistic and ADHD kids aged 8-14. Then they asked: do the scores match real language needs?
What they found
Both tests missed many children who truly have language trouble. A pass on either test does not rule out problems.
Low sensitivity means you cannot trust a clear score. Kids may still need help even if the screen looks fine.
How this fits with other research
South et al. (2002) saw the same flaw with the GARS autism screener. It also missed about half of autistic children. Together the papers warn: popular screeners often under-count the kids who need support.
Munro et al. (2023) add that most assessment reports skip comorbidities and are hard for parents to read. Poor tools plus poor reports leave families confused.
Mason et al. (2021) asked speech-language pathologists how they spot future speakers among minimally verbal kids. Clinicians trust tiny pre-linguistic cues, not short screeners. Their view fits the new data: quick tests miss too much.
Why it matters
If you run the CELF-5 Screener or Vineland-3 and the child passes, do not stop there. Add a dynamic language sample, parent interview, or classroom observation. Write the results in plain language and list next steps for any comorbid issue. One extra step can catch the kids who would otherwise slip through.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Pair any quick language screener with a 5-minute parent question set: 'Does your child mix up word order, get stuck finding words, or miss jokes?' One extra minute can flag kids the test missed.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
Language screening tools are frequently used to identify children with potential undiagnosed language difficulties. These difficulties are more prevalent in autistic children and those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) compared to neurotypical peers. Despite the widespread use of tools like the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Fifth Edition Screening Test (CELF-5 Screener) and the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales, Third Edition (Vineland-3), their sensitivity and specificity for this population have not been empirically validated. This study aimed to evaluate the screening accuracy of the CELF-5 Screener and Vineland-3 in children diagnosed with autism and/or ADHD and compare their performance to the gold standard measure. The sample consisted of 132 participants (n autism = 25; n ADHD = 29, and n autism+ADHD = 78; M age in years = 9.6; % male = 59) from the Monash Autism-ADHD Genetics and Neurodevelopment Project. The sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value of the CELF-5 Screener and Vineland-3 receptive and expressive language subdomain scores were compared against those of the clinician-administered CELF-5 receptive and expressive language composite scores. The screening accuracy of each tool was further evaluated through Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses and calculations of Youden's J statistic. The CELF-5 Screener demonstrated poor sensitivity for receptive language difficulties (35.6%) while demonstrating high specificity (95.3%). Similarly, for expressive language difficulties, the sensitivity was low (37.9%), and the specificity was high (91.1%). The Vineland-3 showed high sensitivity (93.3%) but low specificity (48%) for expressive language difficulties and inadequate sensitivity (80.9%) and specificity (22.4%) for receptive language difficulties. Both the CELF-5 Screener and Vineland-3 may miss a significant number of children with co-occurring language difficulties related to autism and/or ADHD. Examiners must understand these tools' strengths and limitations, especially when assessing neurodivergent children whose language development might not follow a normative trajectory.
Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research, 2025 · doi:10.1002/aur.70021