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.

At its most basic level, dyscalculia is a learning disability affecting the normal development of arithmetic skills.

A consensus has not yet been reached on appropriate diagnostic criteria for dyscalculia. Mathematics is a specific domain that is complex (i.e. includes many different processes, such as arithmetic, algebra, word problems, geometry, etc.) and cumulative (i.e. the processes build on each other such that mastery of an advanced skill requires mastery of many basic skills). Thus dyscalculia can be diagnosed using different criteria, and frequently is; this variety in diagnostic criteria leads to variability in identified samples, and thus variability in research findings regarding dyscalculia.

Other than using achievement tests as diagnostic criteria, researchers often rely on domain-specific tests (i.e. tests of working memory, executive function, inhibition, intelligence, etc.) and teacher evaluations to create a more comprehensive diagnosis. Alternatively, fMRI research has shown that the brains of the neurotypical children can be reliably distinguished from the brains of the dyscalculic children based on the activation in the prefrontal cortex. However, due to the cost and time limitations associated with brain and neural research, these methods will likely not be incorporated into diagnostic criteria despite their effectiveness.

There are tests that can indicate with high probability whether a person is a dyslexic. If diagnostic testing indicates that a person may be dyslexic, such tests are often followed up with a full diagnostic assessment to determine the extent and nature of the disorder. Tests can be administered by a teacher or computer. Some test results indicate how to carry out teaching strategies.

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.

1. SCAN is the most common tool for diagnosing APD, and it also standardized. It is composed for four subsets: discrimination of monaurally presented single words against background noise, acoustically degraded single words, dichotically presented single words, sentence stimuli. Different versions of the test are used depending on the age of the patient.

2. Random Gap Detection Test (RGDT) is also a standardized test. It assesses an individual’s gap detection threshold of tones and white noise. The exam includes stimuli at four different frequencies (500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz) and white noise clicks of 50 ms duration. It is a useful test because it provides an index of auditory temporal resolution. In children, an overall gap detection threshold greater than 20 ms means they have failed.

3. Gaps in Noise Test (GIN) also measures temporal resolution by testing the patient's gap detection threshold in white noise.

4. Pitch Patterns Sequence Test (PPT) and Duration Patterns Sequence Test (DPT) measure auditory pattern identification. The PPS has s series of three tones presented at either of two pitches (high or low). Meanwhile, the DPS has a series of three tones that vary in duration rather than pitch (long or short). Patients are then asked to describe the pattern of pitches presented.

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.

Dyslexic children require special instruction for word analysis and spelling from an early age. While there are fonts that may help people with dyslexia better understand writing, this might simply be due to the added spacing between words. The prognosis, generally speaking, is positive for individuals who are identified in childhood and receive support from friends and family.

Many normed assessments can be used in evaluating skills in the primary academic domains: reading, including word recognition, fluency, and comprehension; mathematics, including computation and problem solving; and written expression, including handwriting, spelling and composition.

The most commonly used comprehensive achievement tests include the Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ IV), Wechsler Individual Achievement Test II (WIAT II), the Wide Range Achievement Test III (WRAT III), and the Stanford Achievement Test–10th edition. These tests include measures of many academic domains that are reliable in identifying areas of difficulty.

In the reading domain, there are also specialized tests that can be used to obtain details about specific reading deficits. Assessments that measure multiple domains of reading include Gray's Diagnostic Reading Tests–2nd edition (GDRT II) and the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Assessment. Assessments that measure reading subskills include the Gray Oral Reading Test IV – Fourth Edition (GORT IV), Gray Silent Reading Test, Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP), Tests of Oral Reading and Comprehension Skills (TORCS), Test of Reading Comprehension 3 (TORC-3), Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE), and the Test of Reading Fluency. A more comprehensive list of reading assessments may be obtained from the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

The purpose of assessment is to determine what is needed for intervention, which also requires consideration of contextual variables and whether there are comorbid disorders that must also be identified and treated, such as behavioral issues or language delays. These contextual variables are often assessed using parent and teacher questionnaire forms that rate the students' behaviors and compares them to standardized norms.

However, caution should be made when suspecting the person with a learning disability may also have dementia, especially as people with Down's syndrome may have the neuroanatomical profile but not the associated clinical signs and symptoms. Examination can be carried out of executive functioning as well as social and cognitive abilities but may need adaptation of standardized tests to take account of special needs.

Assessments for developmental coordination disorder typically require a developmental history, detailing ages at which significant developmental milestones, such as crawling and walking, occurred. Motor skills screening includes activities designed to indicate developmental coordination disorder, including balancing, physical sequencing, touch sensitivity, and variations on walking activities.

The American Psychiatric Association has four primary inclusive diagnostic criteria for determining if a child has developmental coordination disorder.

The criteria are as follows:

1. Motor Coordination will be greatly reduced, although the intelligence of the child is normal for the age.

2. The difficulties the child experiences with motor coordination or planning interfere with the child's daily life.

3. The difficulties with coordination are not due to any other medical condition

4. If the child does also experience comorbidities such as mental retardation; motor coordination is still disproportionally affected.

Screening tests which can be used to assess developmental coordination disorder include:-

- Movement Assessment Battery for Children (Movement-ABC – Movement-ABC 2)

- Peabody Developmental Motor Scales- Second Edition (PDMS-2)

- Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP-BOT-2)

- Motoriktest für vier- bis sechsjährige Kinder (MOT 4-6)

- Körperkoordinationtest für Kinder (KTK)

- Test of Gross Motor Development, Second Edition (TGMD-2)

- Maastrichtse Motoriek Test (MMT)

- Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV)

- Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WAIT-II)

- Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2)

- Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCD-Q)

- Children's Self-Perceptions of Adequacy in, and Predilection for Physical Activity (CSAPPA)

Currently there is no single gold standard assessment test.

A baseline motor assessment establishes the starting point for developmental intervention programs. Comparing children to normal rates of development may help to establish areas of significant difficulty.

However, research in the "British Journal of Special Education" has shown that knowledge is severely limited in many who should be trained to recognise and respond to various difficulties, including developmental coordination disorder, dyslexia and deficits in attention, motor control and perception (DAMP). The earlier that difficulties are noted and timely assessments occur, the quicker intervention can begin. A teacher or GP could miss a diagnosis if they are only applying a cursory knowledge.

"Teachers will not be able to recognise or accommodate the child with learning difficulties in class if their knowledge is limited. Similarly GPs will find it difficult to detect and appropriately refer children with learning difficulties."

To date, very few interventions have been developed specifically for individuals with dyscalculia. Concrete manipulation activities have been used for decades to train basic number concepts for remediation purposes. This method facilitates the intrinsic relationship between a goal, the learner’s action, and the informational feedback on the action. A one-to-one tutoring paradigm designed by Lynn Fuchs and colleagues which teaches concepts in arithmetic, number concepts, counting, and number families using games, flash cards, and manipulables has proven successful in children with generalized math learning difficulties, but intervention has yet to be tested specifically on children with dyscalculia. These methods require specially trained teachers working directly with small groups or individual students. As such, instruction time in the classroom is necessarily limited. For this reason, several research groups have developed computer adaptive training programs designed to target deficits unique to dyscalculic individuals.

Software intended to remediate dyscalculia has been developed. While computer adaptive training programs are modeled after one-to-one type interventions, they provide several advantages. Most notably, individuals are able to practice more with a digital intervention than is typically possible with a class or teacher. As with one-to-one interventions, several digital interventions have also proven successful in children with generalized math learning difficulties. Räsänen and colleagues have found that games such as The Number Race and Graphogame-math can improve performance on number comparison tasks in children with generalized math learning difficulties.

Several digital interventions have been developed for dyscalculics specifically. Each attempts to target basic processes that are associated with maths difficulties. Rescue Calcularis was one early computerized intervention that sought to improve the integrity of and access to the mental number line. Other digital interventions for dyscalculia adapt games, flash cards, and manipulables to function through technology.

While each intervention claims to improve basic numerosity skills, the authors of these interventions do admit that repetition and practice effects may be a factor involved in reported performance gains. An additional criticism is that these digital interventions lack the option to manipulate numerical quantities. While the previous two games provide the correct answer, the individual using the intervention cannot actively determine, through manipulation, what the correct answer should be. Butterworth and colleagues argued that games like The Number Bonds, which allows an individual to compare different sized rods, should be the direction that digital interventions move towards. Such games use manipulation activities to provide intrinsic motivation towards content guided by dyscalculia research. One of these serious games is Meister Cody – Talasia, an online training that includes the CODY Assessment – a diagnostic test for detecting dyscalculia. Based on these findings, Rescue Calcluaris was extended by adaptation algorithms and game forms allowing manipulation by the learners. It was found to improve addition, subtraction and number line tasks, and was made available as Dybuster Calcularis.

A study used transcranial direct current stimulation (TDCS) to the parietal lobe during numerical learning and demonstrated selective improvement of numerical abilities that was still present six months later in typically developing individuals. Improvement were achieved by applying anodal current to the right parietal lobe and cathodal current to the left parietal lobe and contrasting it with the reverse setup. When the same research group used tDCS in a training study with two dyscalculic individuals, the reverse setup (left anodal, right cathodal) demonstrated improvement of numerical abilities.

It has been discovered that APD and ADHD present overlapping symptoms. Below is a ranked order of behavioral symptoms that are most frequently observed in each disorder. Professionals evaluated the overlap of symptoms between the two disorders. The order below is of symptoms that are almost always observed. This chart proves that although the symptoms listed are different, it is easy to get confused between many of them.

There is a high rate of co-occurrence between AD/HD and CAPD. Research shows that 84% of children with APD have confirmed or suspected ADHD. Co-occurrence between ADHD and APD is 41% for children with confirmed diagnosis of ADHD, and 43% for children suspected of having ADHD.

Learning disabilities can be categorized by either the type of information processing affected by the disability or by the specific difficulties caused by a processing deficit.

Sensory aphasia cannot be diagnosed through the use of imaging techniques. Differences in cognition between asymptomatic subjects and affected patients can be observed via functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). However, these results only reveal temporal differences in cognition between control and diagnosed subjects. The degree of progression during therapy can also be surveyed through cognition tests monitored by fMRI. Many patients’ progress is assessed over time via repeated testing and corresponding cerebral imaging by fMRI.

Treatment for dysgraphia varies and may include treatment for motor disorders to help control writing movements. The use of occupational therapy can be effective in the school setting, and teachers should be well informed about dysgraphia to aid in carry-over of the occupational therapist's interventions. Treatments may address impaired memory or other neurological problems. Some physicians recommend that individuals with dysgraphia use computers to avoid the problems of handwriting. Dysgraphia can sometimes be partially overcome with appropriate and conscious effort and training. The International Dyslexia Association suggests the use of kinesthetic memory through early training by having the child overlearn how to write letters and to later practice writing with their eyes closed or averted to reinforce the feel of the letters being written. They also suggest teaching the students cursive writing as it has fewer reversible letters and can help lessen spacing problems, at least within words, because cursive letters are generally attached within a word.

Diagnosing dysgraphia can be challenging but can be done at facilities specializing in learning disabilities. It is suggested that those who believe they may have dysgraphia seek a qualified clinician to be tested. Clinicians will have the client self-generate written sentences and paragraphs, and copy age-appropriate text. They will assess the output of writing, as well as observe the client's posture while writing, their grip on the writing instrument, and will ask the client to either tap their finger or turn their wrists repeatedly to assess fine motor skills.

Developmental coordination disorder is a lifelong neurological condition that is more common in males than in females, with a ratio of approximately four males to every female. The exact proportion of people with the disorder is unknown since the disorder can be difficult to detect due to a lack of specific laboratory tests, thus making diagnosis of the condition one of elimination of all other possible causes/diseases. Approximately 5–6% of children are affected by this condition.

LBLD can be an enduring problem. Some people might experience overlapping learning disabilities that make improvement problematic. Others with single disabilities often show more improvement. Most subjects can achieve literacy via coping mechanisms and education.

The first English-language IQ test, the Stanford–Binet Intelligence Scales, was adapted from a test battery designed for school placement by Alfred Binet in France. Lewis Terman adapted Binet's test and promoted it as a test measuring "general intelligence." Terman's test was the first widely used mental test to report scores in "intelligence quotient" form ("mental age" divided by chronological age, multiplied by 100). Current tests are scored in "deviation IQ" form, with a performance level by a test-taker two standard deviations below the median score for the test-taker's age group defined as IQ 70. Until the most recent revision of diagnostic standards, an IQ of 70 or below was a primary factor for intellectual disability diagnosis, and IQ scores were used to categorize degrees of intellectual disability.

Since current diagnosis of intellectual disability is not based on IQ scores alone, but must also take into consideration a person's adaptive functioning, the diagnosis is not made rigidly. It encompasses intellectual scores, adaptive functioning scores from an adaptive behavior rating scale based on descriptions of known abilities provided by someone familiar with the person, and also the observations of the assessment examiner who is able to find out directly from the person what he or she can understand, communicate, and such like. IQ assessment must be based on a current test. This enables diagnosis to avoid the pitfall of the Flynn effect, which is a consequence of changes in population IQ test performance changing IQ test norms over time.

"Aphasia is usually first recognized by the physician who treats the person for his or her brain injury. Most individuals will undergo a magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) or computed tomography (CT) scan to confirm the presence of a brain injury and to identify its precise location." In circumstances where a person is showing possible signs of aphasia, the physician will refer him or her to a speech-language pathologist (SLP) for a comprehensive speech and language evaluation. SLPs will examine the individual's ability to express him or herself through speech, understand language in written and spoken forms, write independently, and perform socially.

The American Speech, Language, Hearing Association (ASHA) states a comprehensive assessment should be conducted in order to analyze the patient's communication functioning on multiple levels; as well as the effect of possible communication deficits on activities of daily living. Typical components of an aphasia assessment include: case history, self report, oral-motor examination, language skills, identification of environmental and personal factors, and the assessment results. A comprehensive aphasia assessment includes both formal and informal measures.

Formal assessments:

- Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE): diagnoses the presence and type of aphasia, focusing on location of lesion and the underlying linguistic processes.

- Western Aphasia Battery - Revised (WAB): determines the presence, severity, and type of aphasia; and can also determine baseline abilities of patient.

- Communication Activities of Daily Living - Second Edition (CADL-2): measures functional communication abilities; focuses on reading, writing, social interactions, and varying levels of communication.

- Revised Token Test (RTT): assess receptive language and auditory comprehension; focuses on patient's ability to follow directions.

Informal Assessments:

Informal assessments aide in the diagnosis of patients with suspected aphasia.

- Conversational Speech and Language Sample

- Family Interview

- Case History or Medical Chart Review

- Behavioral Observations

Diagnostic information should be scored and analyzed appropriately. Treatment plans and individual goals should be developed based on diagnostic information, as well as patient and caregiver needs, desires, and priorities.

Special education classes are the primary treatment. These classes focus on activities that sustain growth in language skills. The foundation of this treatment is repetition of oral, reading and writing activities. Usually the SLP, psychologist and the teacher work together with the children in small groups in the class room.

Another treatment is looking at a child's needs through the Individual Education Plan (IEP). In this program teachers and parents work together to monitor the progress of the child's comprehensive, verbal, written, social, and motor skills in school and in the home. Then the child goes through different assessments to determine his/her level. The level that the child is placed in will determine the class size, number of teachers, and the need for therapy.

Developmental disabilities can be initially suspected when a child does not reach expected child development stages. Subsequently, a differential diagnosis may be used to diagnose an underlying disease, which may include a physical examination and genetic tests.

The degree of disability can be quantified by assigning a "developmental age" to a person, which is age of the group into which test scores place the person. This, in turn, can be used to calculate a "" (DQ) as follows:

formula_1

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.

Sensory aphasia is typically diagnosed by non-invasive evaluations. Neurologists, neuropsychologists or speech pathologists will administer oral evaluations to determine the extent of a patient’s comprehension and speech capability. Initial assessment will determine if the cause of linguistic deficiency is aphasia. If the diagnosis is then confirmed, testing will next address the type of aphasia and its severity. The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination specializes in determining the severity of a sensory aphasia through the observation of conversational behaviors. Several modalities of perception and response are observed in conjunction with the subject’s ability to process sensory information. The location of the brain lesion and type of the aphasia can then be inferred from the observed symptoms. The Minnesota Test for Differential Diagnosis is the most lengthy and thorough assessment of sensory aphasia. It pinpoints weaknesses in the auditory and visual senses, as well as reading comprehension. From this differential diagnosis, a patient’s course of treatment can be determined. After treatment planning, the Porch Index of Communicative Ability is used to evaluate prognosis and the degree of recovery.

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has not approved any drug for the direct treatment of stuttering. However, the effectiveness of pharmacological agents, such as benzodiazepines, anticonvulsants, antidepressants, antipsychotic and antihypertensive medications, and dopamine antagonists in the treatment of stuttering has been evaluated in studies involving both adults and children.

A comprehensive review of pharmacological treatments of stuttering in 2006 concluded that few of the drug trials were methodologically sound. Of those that were, only one, not unflawed study, showed a reduction in the frequency of stuttering to less than 5% of words spoken. In addition, potentially serious side effects of pharmacological treatments were noted, such as weight gain, sexual dysfunctions and the potential for blood pressure increases. There is one new drug studied especially for stuttering named pagoclone, which was found to be well-tolerated "with only minor side-effects of headache and fatigue reported in a minority of those treated".