What age is considered to be a speech delay

Post Reply New Topic

I'm wondering about what is considered the average range children begin to talk? I have searched and can not find What I'm looking for. What I did find was inconclusive.

Before the age of 3 I would say one word or repeat back to what was said to me. I was around 3 1/2 before I could engage in a conversation.
I was very non verbal until age 3 and a half

Could anyone direct me to a site with compleate accurate information?

See if this website helps:

http://www.childdevelopmentinfo.com/development/language_development.shtml

I believe the generally accepted clinical marker for delayed speech is roughly 2 and a half years. If a child is not talking at all by that point, its time to start looking for reasons why.

Thanks for the link! I found it very informative! From what I read on the website is that I was older than the average kid at the various stages of speech development, by 1 to 2 years.

dang I didn't talk until I was 4! My mom blamed my sister for talking all the time and nnot letting me talk enough. I remember not talking, and I was fine with it!

I didn't talk at all until I was 2. I don't think they saw that as late enough since I was diagnosed with AS, not HFA.

I think it's considered a speech delay if a person isn't talking by the time their 3-3 1/2. Personally, I think that's very late to begin speaking, but it still isn't considered late to professionals.

Hope this site helps.
http://www.kidsdevelopment.co.uk/Speech ... ldren.html

i were diagnosed with speech delay at age 4, and i cant remember when i could speak in sentences and make myself understood

I couldn't talk more than 2/3 words at a time until I was 5/6 if that counts. Before then I could say a few words or just repeat things (echolalia?).

Diagnosing classic autism doesn't particularly hinge on an absence of speech until age three or later, though; highly idiosyncratic speech, echolalic speech, or non-communicative speech all "count" as a speech delay for the purposes of an autism diagnosis. For example, if you spoke mostly in pre-recorded phrases to communicate your needs; or you copied speech patterns without communicating what you wanted to say; or you had speech that had significant grammar/syntax errors (usually with a lot of neologisms), then that would be sufficiently unusual to be considered a sign of classic autism. Many diagnosed "aspies" should be diagnosed classic autistic because of that distinction; highly unusual or non-communicative speech is classic autism... Really, if you apply the criteria strictly, Asperger's fairly fades into classical autism, and being diagnosed AS gets very rare because anyone who fits AS criteria also fits classic autism criteria, and the rest often don't have "significant impairment" and can't be diagnosed at all... I'm rather glad they're going to merge these; it'll stop people diagnosing Asperger's based mostly on how much you fit the AS stereotype!