Assessment will usually include an interview with the child’s caregiver, observation of the child in an unstructured setting, a hearing test, and standardized tests of language. There is a wide range of language assessments in English. Some are restricted for use by experts in speech-language pathology: speech and language therapists (SaLTs/SLTs) in the UK, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the US and Australia. A commonly used test battery for diagnosis of DLD is the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF).

Assessments that can be completed by a parent or teacher can be useful to identify children who may require more in-depth evaluation. The Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC–2) is a parent questionnaire suitable for assessing everyday use of language in children aged 4 years and above who can speak in sentences.

Informal assessments, such as language samples, are often used by speech-language therapists/pathologists to complement formal testing and give an indication of the child's language in a more naturalistic context. A language sample may be of a conversation or narrative retell. In a narrative language sample, an adult may tell the child a story using a wordless picture book (e.g. Frog Where Are You?, Mayer, 1969), then ask the child to use the pictures and tell the story back. Language samples can be transcribed using computer software such as the Systematic Analysis of Language Software, and then analyzed for a range of features: e.g., the grammatical complexity of the child's utterances, whether the child introduces characters to their story or jumps right in, whether the events follow a logical order, and whether the narrative includes a main idea or theme and supporting details.

Assessment will usually include an interview with the child’s caregiver, observation of the child in an unstructured setting, a hearing test, and standardized tests of language and nonverbal ability. There is a wide range of language assessments in English. Some are restricted for use by speech and language professionals (therapists or SALTs in the UK, speech-language pathologists, SLPs, in the US and Australia).

A commonly used test battery for diagnosis of SLI is the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF).

Assessments that can be completed by a parent or teacher can be useful to identify children who may require more in-depth evaluation.

The Grammar and Phonology Screening (GAPS) test is a quick (ten minute) simple and accurate screening test developed and standardized in the UK. It is suitable for children from 3;4 to 6;8 years;months and can be administered by professionals and non-professionals (including parents) alike, and has been demonstrated to be highly accurate (98% accuracy) in identifying impaired children who need specialist help vs non-impaired children. This makes it potentially a feasible test for widespread screening.

The Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC–2) is a parent questionnaire suitable for testing language skills in school-aged children.

Informal assessments, such as language samples, may also be used. This procedure is useful when the normative sample of a given test is inappropriate for a given child, for instance, if the child is bilingual and the sample was of monolingual children. It is also an ecologically valid measure of all aspects of language (e.g. semantics, syntax, pragmatics, etc.).

To complete a language sample, the SLP will spend about 15 minutes talking with the child. The sample may be of a conversation (Hadley, 1998), or narrative retell. In a narrative language sample, the SLP will tell the child a story using a wordless picture book (e.g. "Frog Where Are You?", Mayer, 1969), then ask the child to use the pictures and tell the story back.

Language samples are typically transcribed using computer software such as the Systematic Analysis of Language Software (SALT, Miller et al. 2012), and then analyzed. For example, the SLP might look for whether the child introduces characters to their story or jumps right in, whether the events follow a logical order, and whether the narrative includes a main idea or theme and supporting details.

Developmental Verbal Dyspraxia can be diagnosed by a speech language pathologist (SLP) through specific exams that measure oral mechanisms of speech. The oral mechanisms exam involves tasks such as pursing lips, blowing, licking lips, elevating the tongue, and also involves an examination of the mouth. A complete exam also involves observation of the patient eating and talking. Tests such as the Kaufman Speech Praxis test, a more formal examination, are also used in diagnosis.

A differential diagnosis of DVD/CAS is often not possible for children under the age of 2 years old. Even when children are between 2–3 years, a clear diagnosis cannot always occur, because at this age, they may still be unable to focus on, or cooperate with, diagnostic testing.

DLD is defined purely in behavioural terms: there is no biological test. There are three points that need to be met for a diagnosis of DLD:

1. The child has language difficulties that create obstacles to communication or learning in everyday life,

2. The child's language problems are unlikely to resolve by five years of age, and

3. The problems are not associated with a known biomedical condition such as brain injury, neurodegenerative conditions, genetic conditions or chromosome disorders such as Down Syndrome, sensorineural hearing loss, or Autism Spectrum Disorder or Intellectual Disability.

For research and epidemiological purposes, specific cutoffs on language assessments have been used to document the first criterion. Tomblin et al. proposed the EpiSLI criterion, based on five composite scores representing performance in three domains of language (vocabulary, grammar, and narration) and two modalities (comprehension and production). Children scoring in the lowest 10% on two or more composite scores are identified as having language disorder.

The second criterion, persistence of language problems, can be difficult to judge in a young child, but longitudinal studies have shown that difficulties are less likely to resolve for children who have poor language comprehension, rather than difficulties confined to expressive language. In addition, children with isolated difficulties in just one of the areas noted under 'subtypes' tend to make better progress than those whose language is impaired in several areas.

The third criterion specifies that DLD is used for children whose language disorder is not part of another biomedical condition, such as a genetic syndrome, a sensorineural hearing loss, neurological disease, Autism Spectrum Disorder or Intellectual Disability – these were termed 'differentiating conditions' by the CATALISE panel. Language disorders occurring with these conditions need to be assessed and children offered appropriate intervention, but a terminological distinction is made so that these cases would be diagnosed as Language Disorder associated with ___, with the main diagnosis being specified: e.g. "Language Disorder associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder." The reasoning behind these diagnostic distinctions is discussed further by Bishop (2017).

Epidemiological surveys, in the US and Canada, estimated the prevalence of SLI in 5-year-olds at around 7 percent. However, neither study adopted the stringent 'discrepancy' criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or ICD-10; SLI was diagnosed if the child scored below cut-off on standardized language tests, but had a nonverbal IQ of 90 or above and no other exclusionary criteria.

According to the DSM-IV-TR, communication disorders are usually first diagnosed in childhood or adolescence though they are not limited as childhood disorders and may persist into adulthood. They may also occur with other disorders.

Diagnosis involves testing and evaluation during which it is determined if the scores/performance are "substantially below" developmental expectations and if they "significantly" interfere with academic achievement, social interactions and daily living. This assessment may also determine if the characteristic is deviant or delayed. Therefore, it may be possible for an individual to have communication challenges but not meet the criteria of being "substantially below" criteria of the DSM IV-TR.

It should also be noted that the DSM diagnoses do not comprise a complete list of all communication disorders, for example, auditory processing disorder is not classified under the DSM or ICD-10.

The following diagnoses are included in the communication disorders:

- Expressive language disorder – Characterized by difficulty expressing oneself beyond simple sentences and a limited vocabulary. An individual understands language better than their ability to use it; they may have a lot to say but have difficulties organizing and retrieving the words to get an idea across beyond what is expected for their developmental stage.

- Mixed receptive-expressive language disorder – problems comprehending the commands of others.

- Stuttering – a speech disorder characterized by a break in fluency, where sounds, syllables or words may be repeated or prolonged.

- Phonological disorder – a speech sound disorder characterized by problems in making patterns of sound errors, i.e. "dat" for "that".

- Communication disorder NOS (not otherwise specified) – the DSM-IV diagnosis in which disorders that do not meet the specific criteria for the disorder listed above may be classified.

Although qualitative and quantitative studies exist, there is little consensus on the proper method to assess for apraxia. The criticisms of past methods include failure to meet standard psychometric properties as well as research-specific designs that translate poorly to non-research use.

The Test to Measure Upper Limb Apraxia (TULIA) is one method of determining upper limb apraxia through the qualitative and quantitative assessment of gesture production. In contrast to previous publications on apraxic assessment, the reliability and validity of TULIA was thoroughly investigated. The TULIA consists of subtests for the imitation and pantomime of non-symbolic (“put your index finger on top of your nose”), intransitive (“wave goodbye”) and transitive (“show me how to use a hammer”) gestures. Discrimination (differentiating between well- and poorly performed tasks) and recognition (indicating which object corresponds to a pantomimed gesture) tasks are also often tested for a full apraxia evaluation.

However, there may not be a strong correlation between formal test results and actual performance in everyday functioning or activities of daily living (ADLs). A comprehensive assessment of apraxia should include formal testing, standardized measurements of ADLs, observation of daily routines, self-report questionnaires and targeted interviews with the patients and their relatives.

As stated above, apraxia should not be confused with aphasia; however, they frequently occur together. It has been stated that apraxia is so often accompanied by aphasia that many believe that if a person displays AOS; it should be assumed that the patient also has some level of aphasia.

There is no cure for DVD/CAS, but with appropriate, intensive intervention, people with the disorder can improve significantly.

DVD/CAS requires various forms of therapy which varies with the individual needs of the patient. Typically, treatment involves one-on-one therapy with a speech language pathologist (SLP). In children with DVD/CAS, consistency is a key element in treatment. Consistency in the form of communication, as well as the development and use of oral communication are extremely important in aiding a child's speech learning process.

Many therapy approaches are not supported by thorough evidence; however, the aspects of treatment that do seem to be agreed upon are the following:

- Treatment needs to be intense and highly individualized, with about 3-5 therapy sessions each week

- A maximum of 30 minutes per session is best for young children

- Principles of motor learning theory and intense speech-motor practice seem to be the most effective

- Non-speech oral motor therapy is not necessary or sufficient

- A multi-sensory approach to therapy may be beneficial: using sign language, pictures, tactile cues, visual prompts, and Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) can be helpful.

Although these aspects of treatment are supported by much clinical documentation, they lack evidence from systematic research studies. In ASHA's position statement on DVD/CAS, ASHA states there is a critical need for collaborative, interdisciplinary, and programmatic research on the neural substrates, behavioral correlates, and treatment options for DVD/CAS.

For nonverbal grade school children and adolescents with autism, communication systems and interventions have been implemented to enhance language and communication outcomes. Speech-generated devices, such as iPads, use visual displays for children who lack verbal language, giving them the task of selecting icons indicating a request or need. For adolescents with nonverbal autism, interventions can condition them to learn more advanced operations on speech-generated devices that require more steps (i.e. turning on device, scrolling through pages), which would allow them to enhance their communicative abilities independently.

The Picture Exchange System (PECS) is an alternative form of spontaneous communication for children with autism in which an individual selects a picture indicating a request. PECS can be utilized in educational settings and at the child’s home. Longitudinal studies suggest PECS can have long-term positive outcomes for school-aged children with nonverbal autism, specifically their social-communicative skills, such as higher frequencies of joint attention and initiation, and duration of cooperative play, which are all important roles in improving language outcomes.

It has also been suggested that a significant stage in acquiring verbal language is learning how to identify and reproduce syllables of words. One study found that nonverbal and minimally verbal children with autism are capable of enhancing their oral production and vocalizing written words by isolating each syllable of a word one at a time. The process of breaking down a syllable at a time and having it visually displayed and audibly available to the child can prompt him or her to imitate and create nonrandom and meaningful utterances.

Most of these studies contain small sample sizes and were pilot studies, making additional research significant to assess whether these findings can be generalized to all age groups of the same population. Furthermore, most studies on nonverbal autism speech-generated device communication were based on more basic skills, such as naming pictures and making requests for stimuli, while studies in advanced communication (i.e. asking "how are you?") is limited.

Classifying speech into normal and disordered is more problematic than it first seems. By a strict classification, only 5% to 10% of the population has a completely normal manner of speaking (with respect to all parameters) and healthy voice; all others suffer from one disorder or another.

There are three different levels of classification when determining the magnitude and type of a speech disorders and the proper treatment or therapy:

1. Sounds the patient can produce

1. Phonemic – can be produced easily; used meaningfully and constructively

2. Phonetic – produced only upon request; not used consistently, meaningfully, or constructively; not used in connected speech

2. Stimulate sounds

1. Easily stimulated

2. Stimulate after demonstration and probing (i.e. with a tongue depressor)

3. Cannot produce the sound

1. Cannot be produced voluntarily

2. No production ever observed

Disorders and tendencies included and excluded under the category of communication disorders may vary by source. For example, the definitions offered by the American Speech–Language–Hearing Association differ from that of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual 4th edition (DSM-IV).

Gleanson (2001) defines a communication disorder as a speech and language disorder which refers to problems in communication and in related areas such as oral motor function. The delays and disorders can range from simple sound substitution to the inability to understand or use their native language.

In general, communications disorders commonly refer to problems in speech (comprehension and/or expression) that significantly interfere with an individual’s achievement and/or quality of life. Knowing the operational definition of the agency performing an assessment or giving a diagnosis may help.

Persons who speak more than one language or are considered to have an accent in their location of residence do not have speech disorders if they are speaking in a manner consistent with their home environment or a blending of their home and foreign environment.

Pragmatic language impairment (PLI), or social (pragmatic) communication disorder (SCD), is an impairment in understanding pragmatic aspects of language. This type of impairment was previously called semantic-pragmatic disorder (SPD). People with these impairments have special challenges with the semantic aspect of language (the meaning of what is being said) and the pragmatics of language (using language appropriately in social situations). It is assumed that those with autism have difficulty with "the meaning of what is being said" due to different ways of responding to social situations.

PLI is now a diagnosis in DSM-5, and is called social (pragmatic) communication disorder. Communication problems are also part of the autism spectrum disorders (ASD); however, the latter also show a restricted pattern of behavior, according to behavioral psychology. The diagnosis SCD can only be given if ASD has been ruled out.

In most cases the cause is unknown. However, there are various known causes of speech impediments, such as "hearing loss, neurological disorders, brain injury, intellectual disability, drug abuse, physical impairments such as cleft lip and palate, and vocal abuse or misuse."

In 1983, Rapin and Allen suggested the term "semantic pragmatic disorder" to describe the communicative behavior of children who presented traits such as pathological talkativeness, deficient access to vocabulary and discourse comprehension, atypical choice of terms and inappropriate conversational skills. They referred to a group of children who presented with mild autistic features and specific semantic pragmatic language problems. More recently, the term "pragmatic language impairment" (PLI) has been proposed.

Rapin and Allen's definition has been expanded and refined by therapists who include communication disorders that involve difficulty in understanding the meaning of words, grammar, syntax, prosody, eye gaze, body language, gestures, or social context. While autistic children exhibit pragmatic language impairment, this type of communication disorder can also be found in individuals with other types of disorders including auditory processing disorders, neuropathies, encephalopathies and certain genetic disorders.

Contrary to popular belief, people with selective mutism do not necessarily improve with age. Effective treatment is necessary for a child to develop properly. Without treatment, selective mutism can contribute to chronic depression, further anxiety, and other social and emotional problems.

Consequently, treatment at an early age is important. If not addressed, selective mutism tends to be self-reinforcing. Others may eventually expect an afflicted child to not speak and therefore stop attempting to initiate verbal contact. Alternatively, they may pressure the child to talk, increasing their anxiety levels in situations where speech is expected. Due to these problems, a change of environment may be a viable consideration. However, changing school is worth considering only if the alternative environment is highly supportive, otherwise a whole new environment could also be a social shock for the individual and/or deprive them of any friends or support they have currently. Regardless of the cause, increasing awareness and ensuring an accommodating, supportive environment are the first steps towards effective treatment. Most often afflicted children do not have to change schools or classes and have no difficulty keeping up except on the communication and social front. Treatment in teenage or adult years can be more difficult because the afflicted individual has become accustomed to being mute.

The exact treatment depends on the person's age, any comorbid mental illnesses, and a number of other factors. For instance, stimulus fading is typically used with younger children because older children and teenagers recognize the situation as an attempt to make them speak, and older people with this condition and people with depression are more likely to need medication.

Like other disabilities, adequate accommodations are needed for the afflicted to succeed at school, work, and in the home. Under the U.S. federal law and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), those with the disorder qualify for services based upon the fact that they have an impairment that hinders their ability to speak, thus disrupting their lives. This assistance is typically documented in the form of an Individual Educational Plan (IEP). Post-secondary accommodations are also available for people with disabilities.

Under another law, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, public school districts are required to provide a free, appropriate public education to every "qualified handicapped person" residing within their jurisdiction. If the child is found to have impairments that substantially limit a major life activity (in this case, learning), the education agency has to decide what related aids or services are required to provide equal access to the learning environment.

In 2006, the U.S. Department of Education indicated that more than 1.4 million students were served in the public schools' special education programs under the speech or language impairment category of IDEA 2004. This estimate does not include children who have speech/language problems secondary to other conditions such as deafness; this means that if all cases of speech or language impairments were included in the estimates, this category of impairment would be the largest. Another source has estimated that communication disorders—a larger category, which also includes hearing disorders—affect one of every 10 people in the United States.

ASHA has cited that 24.1% of children in school in the fall of 2003 received services for speech or language disorders—this amounts to a total of 1,460,583 children between 3 –21 years of age. Again, this estimate does not include children who have speech/language problems secondary to other conditions. Additional ASHA prevalence figures have suggested the following:

- Stuttering affects approximately 4% to 5% of children between the ages of 2 and 4.

- ASHA has indicated that in 2006:

- Almost 69% of SLPs served individuals with fluency problems.

- Almost 29% of SLPs served individuals with voice or resonance disorders.

- Approximately 61% of speech-language pathologists in schools indicated that they served individuals with SLI

- Almost 91% of SLPs in schools indicated that they servedindividuals with phonological/articulation disorder

- Estimates for language difficulty in preschool children range from 2% to 19%.

- Specific Language Impairment (SLI) is extremely common in children, and affects about 7% of the childhood population.

Children who demonstrate deficiencies early in their speech and language development are at risk for continued speech and language issues throughout later childhood. Similarly, even if these speech and language problems have been resolved, children with early language delay are more at risk for difficulties in phonological awareness, reading, and writing throughout their lives. Children with mixed receptive-expressive language disorder are often likely to have long-term implications for language development, literacy, behavior, social development, and even mental health problems. If suspected of having a mixed receptive-expressive language disorder, treatment is available from a speech therapist or pathologist. Most treatments are short term, and rely upon accommodations made within the environment, in order to minimize interfering with work or school. Programs that involve intervention planning that link verbal short term memory with visual/non-verbal information may be helpful for these children. In addition, approaches such as parent training for language stimulation and monitoring language through the "watch and see" method are recommended. The watch-and-see technique advises children with mixed receptive-expressive language disorder who come from stable, middle-class homes without any other behavioral, medical, or hearing problems should be vigilantly monitored rather than receive intervention. It is often the case that children do not meet the eligibility criteria established through a comprehensive oral language evaluation; and as a result, are not best suited for early intervention programs and require a different approach besides the "one size fits all" model.

It is estimated that 25 to 50% of children diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) never develop spoken language beyond a few words or utterances. Despite the growing field of research on ASD, there is not much information available pertaining to individuals with autism who never develop functional language; that, in fact, individuals with nonverbal autism are considered to be underrepresented in all of autism research. Because of the limited research on nonverbal autism, there are not many validated measurements appropriate for this population. For example, while they may be appropriate for younger children, they lack the validity for grade-school aged children and adolescents and have continued to be a roadblock for nonverbal autism research. Often in autism research, individuals with nonverbal autism are sub-grouped with LFA, categorized by learning at most one word or having minimal verbal language.

Most of the existing body of research in nonverbal autism focuses on early interventions that predict successful language outcomes. Research suggests that most spoken language is inherited before the age of five, and the likelihood of acquiring functional language in the future past this age is minimal, that early language development is crucial to educational achievement, employment, independence during adulthood, and social relationships.

Studies have failed to find clear evidence that language delay can be prevented by training or educating health care professionals in the subject. Overall, some of the reviews show positive results regarding interventions in language delay, but are not curative. (Commentary - Early Identification of Language Delays, 2005)

About half of parents of children with ASD notice their child's unusual behaviors by age 18 months, and about four-fifths notice by age 24 months. According to an article, failure to meet any of the following milestones "is an absolute indication to proceed with further evaluations. Delay in referral for such testing may delay early diagnosis and treatment and affect the long-term outcome".

- No babbling by 12 months.

- No gesturing (pointing, waving, etc.) by 12 months.

- No single words by 16 months.

- No two-word (spontaneous, not just echolalic) phrases by 24 months.

- Any loss of any language or social skills, at any age.

The United States Preventive Services Task Force in 2016 found it was unclear if screening was beneficial or harmful among children in whom there is no concerns. The Japanese practice is to screen all children for ASD at 18 and 24 months, using autism-specific formal screening tests. In contrast, in the UK, children whose families or doctors recognize possible signs of autism are screened. It is not known which approach is more effective. Screening tools include the Modified Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (M-CHAT), the Early Screening of Autistic Traits Questionnaire, and the First Year Inventory; initial data on M-CHAT and its predecessor, the Checklist for Autism in Toddlers (CHAT), on children aged 18–30 months suggests that it is best used in a clinical setting and that it has low sensitivity (many false-negatives) but good specificity (few false-positives). It may be more accurate to precede these tests with a broadband screener that does not distinguish ASD from other developmental disorders. Screening tools designed for one culture's norms for behaviors like eye contact may be inappropriate for a different culture. Although genetic screening for autism is generally still impractical, it can be considered in some cases, such as children with neurological symptoms and dysmorphic features.

Expressive language disorder is a communication disorder in which there are difficulties with verbal and written expression. It is a specific language impairment characterized by an ability to use expressive spoken language that is markedly below the appropriate level for the mental age, but with a language comprehension that is within normal limits. There can be problems with vocabulary, producing complex sentences, and remembering words, and there may or may not be abnormalities in articulation.

As well as present speech production, very often, someone will have difficulty remembering things. This memory problem is only disturbing for speech; non-verbal or non-linguistically based memory will be unimpaired. An example of a child with expressive language disorder can be seen here.

Expressive language disorder affects work and schooling in many ways. It is usually treated by specific speech therapy, and usually cannot be expected to go away on its own.

Expressive language disorder can be further classified into two groups: developmental expressive language disorder and acquired expressive language disorder. Developmental expressive language disorder currently has no known cause, is first observed when a child is learning to talk, is more common in boys than girls, and is much more common than the acquired form of the disorder. Acquired expressive language disorder is caused by specific damage to the brain by a stroke, traumatic brain injury, or seizures.

Care must be taken to distinguish expressive language disorder from other communication disorders, sensory-motor disturbances, intellectual disability and/or environmental deprivation (see DSM-IV-TR criterion D). These factors affect a person's speech and writing to certain predictable extents, and with certain differences.

Careful diagnosis is also important because "atypical language development can be a secondary characteristic of other physical and developmental problems that may first manifest as language problems".

Apraxia of speech can be diagnosed by a speech language pathologist (SLP) through specific exams that measure oral mechanisms of speech. The oral mechanisms exam involves tasks such as pursing lips, blowing, licking lips, elevating the tongue, and also involves an examination of the mouth. A complete exam also involves observation of the patient eating and talking. SLPs do not agree on a specific set of characteristics that make up the apraxia of speech diagnosis, so any of the characteristics from the section above could be used to form a diagnosis. Patients may be asked to perform other daily tasks such as reading, writing, and conversing with others. In situations involving brain damage, an MRI brain scan also helps identify damaged areas of the brain.

A differential diagnosis must be used in order to rule out other similar or alternative disorders. Although disorders such as expressive aphasia, conduction aphasia, and dysarthria involve similar symptoms as apraxia of speech, the disorders must be distinguished in order to correctly treat the patients. While AOS involves the motor planning or processing stage of speech, aphasic disorders can involve other language processes.

According to Ziegler et al., this difficulty in diagnosis derives from the unknown causes and function of the disorder, making it hard to set definite parameters for AOS identification. Specifically, he explains that oral-facial apraxia, dysarthria, and aphasic phonological impairment are the three distinctly different disorders that cause individuals to display symptoms that are often similar to those of someone with AOS, and that these close relatives must be correctly ruled out by a Speech Language Pathologist before AOS can be given as a diagnosis. In this way, AOS is a diagnosis of exclusion, and is generally recognized when all other similar speech sound production disorders are eliminated.

PDD-NOS is an old diagnostic category. It is no longer included as an option for an Autism Spectrum Disorder and is not part of the DSM-5, but is included in the ICD-10.

The diagnosis of a pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified is given to individuals with difficulties in the areas of social interaction, communication, and/or stereotyped behavior patterns or interests, but who do not meet the full DSM-IV criteria for autism or another PDD. This does not necessarily mean that PDD-NOS is a milder disability than the other PDDs. It only means that individuals who receive this diagnosis do not meet the diagnostic criteria of the other PDDs, but that there is still a pervasive developmental disorder that affects the individual in the areas of communication, socialization and behavior.

As for the other pervasive developmental disorders, diagnosis of PDD-NOS requires the involvement of a team of specialists. The individual needs to undergo a full diagnostic evaluation, including a thorough medical, social, adaptive, motor skills and communication history. Other parts of an assessment can be behavioral rating scales, direct behavioral observations, psychological assessment, educational assessment, communication assessment, and occupational assessment.

Description of PDD-NOS merely as a "subthreshold" category without a more specific case definition poses methodological problems for research regarding the relatively heterogeneous group of people who receive this diagnosis. However, it appears that children with PDD-NOS show fewer intellectual deficits than autistic children, and that they may come to professional attention at a later age.

What follows are a list of frequently used measures of speech and language skills, and the age-ranges for which they are appropriate.

- Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – Preschool (3–6 years)

- Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (6–21 years)

- MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories (0–12 months)

- The Rossetti Infant-Toddler Language Scale (0–36 months)

- Preschool Language Scale (0–6 years)

- Expressive One-word Picture Vocabulary Test (2–15 years)

- Bankson-Bernthal Phonological Process Survey Test (2–16 years)

- Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation 2 (2–21 years)

- Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (2.5–40 years)

An expressive language disability or delay in kindergarten age children is classified as a Communication Disability/Delay under a Code 30. If there is no marked improvement in the child's ability to express themselves verbally once the student enters Grade 1, a child can be given a Code 57 for a Communication Disability. This diagnosis must be given from a Speech-Language Pathologist in order for the child to receive continued special education funding.