There has been significant and extensive knowledge production in the last four decades regarding pragmatic language impairment (PLI) in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. The evidence contained in this literature, however, is contradictory. The present scoping review (ScR) seeks to disentangle competing explanations of conceptualizing, defining, and assessing PLI to develop more systematic knowledge suitable for improving early intervention and diagnosing PLI. Our research included retrieving articles, books, book chapters, encyclopaedia articles, and other published material on conceptualizing, defining, and assessing preschoolers' PLIs from online databases. A total of 133 studies have been identified, divided into two types: 63 studies conceptualizing and assessing PLI in preschoolers and 70 studies conceptualizing and defining PLI without regard to age. They were published between 1983 and 2022. The inclusion of studies in the first group was based upon factors such as the age of participants, clinical settings, and the use of PLI assessment instruments. The second group of studies was selected in accordance with Web of Science, Scopus, and Lens database indicators that indicated who were the most popular authors within the field. This review utilized the PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews) checklist and the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) guidelines. Results indicate that PLI is being conceptualized inconsistently. Three lists of concepts are reported here, with the earliest concept being “semantic-pragmatic syndrome” and the most prevalent being “PLI” without semantic features. Among the most common misconceptions of PLI is the use of impairment, disorder, deficit, dysfunction, disability, and many other concepts, both within the same publication and among different authors who have written numerous publications in this field. Researchers and clinicians are confused as to the nature of social (pragmatic) communication disorder compared to PLI, owing in part to its inclusion as a competing concept for PLI. As a final point, we argue that using different assessment methods for PLI is a promising approach to hope for consistency in conceptualizing, defining, and assessing PLI in children with neurodevelopmental disorders or others. The vast number of existing studies that seek to conceptualize, define, and assess PLI in preschool children with neurodevelopmental disorders and other conditions illustrates the broad interest in understanding more about the nature and occurrence of this impairment. Further, these studies also highlight some common patterns, discrepancies, and contradictions in relevant language that suggests researchers in all related fields should endeavour to be consistent in the way these concepts are defined and discussed to avoid miscommunication and confusion across and within the professions, as well as decrease the redundancy and overlap of related information. A consistent conception of language development disorders is necessary to obtain clarity in diagnosis, assessment, intervention, and rehabilitation.

中文翻译：

---

概念化、定义和评估临床环境中的语用语言障碍：范围界定审查

在过去的四十年里，关于神经发育障碍儿童的实用语言障碍 (PLI)，已经产生了重要而广泛的知识。然而，该文献中包含的证据是相互矛盾的。本范围界定审查 (ScR) 旨在理清对 PLI 的概念化、定义和评估的相互竞争的解释，以开发更适合改进早期干预和诊断 PLI 的系统知识。我们的研究包括从在线数据库中检索关于概念化、定义和评估学龄前儿童 PLI 的文章、书籍、书籍章节、百科全书文章和其他已发表材料。总共确定了 133 项研究，分为两类：63 项研究对学龄前儿童的 PLI 进行了概念化和评估，70 项研究在不考虑年龄的情况下对 PLI 进行了概念化和定义。它们发表于 1983 年至 2022 年之间。将研究纳入第一组是基于参与者的年龄、临床环境和 PLI 评估工具的使用等因素。第二组研究是根据 Web of Science、Scopus 和 Lens 数据库指标选择的，这些指标表明谁是该领域最受欢迎的作者。该审查使用了 PRISMA-ScR（系统审查的首选报告项目和范围审查的元分析扩展）清单和 Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) 指南。结果表明 PLI 的概念化不一致。这里报告了三个概念列表，最早的概念是“语义-语用综合症”，最流行的是没有语义特征的“PLI”。PLI 最常见的误解是在同一出版物中以及在该领域撰写了大量出版物的不同作者之间使用损伤、紊乱、缺陷、功能障碍、残疾和许多其他概念。与 PLI 相比，研究人员和临床医生对社交（语用）沟通障碍的性质感到困惑，部分原因是它被列为 PLI 的竞争概念。最后一点，我们认为，对 PLI 使用不同的评估方法是一种有前途的方法，希望在神经发育障碍或其他儿童的概念化、定义和评估 PLI 方面保持一致。大量现有研究试图概念化、定义、评估患有神经发育障碍和其他疾病的学龄前儿童的 PLI 说明了人们对更多地了解这种损伤的性质和发生的广泛兴趣。此外，这些研究还强调了相关语言中的一些常见模式、差异和矛盾，这表明所有相关领域的研究人员应该努力在定义和讨论这些概念的方式上保持一致，以避免专业之间和专业内部的误解和混淆，因为以及减少相关信息的冗余和重叠。语言发育障碍的一致概念对于获得清晰的诊断、评估、干预和康复是必要的。