Background: Developmental language disorder (DLD) is one of the most common neurodevelopmental conditions. Due to variable rates of language growth in children under 5 years, the early identification of children with DLD is challenging. Early indicators are often outlined by speech pathology regulatory bodies and other developmental services as evidence to empower caregivers in the early identification of DLD. Aims: To test the predictive relationship between parent-reported early indicators and the likelihood of children meeting diagnostic criteria for DLD at 10 years of age as determined by standardized assessment measures in a population-based sample. Methods: Data were leveraged from the prospective Raine Study (n = 1626 second-generation children: n = 104 with DLD; n = 1522 without DLD). These data were transformed into 11 predictor variables that reflect well-established early indicators of DLD from birth to 3 years, including if the child does not smile or interact with others, does not babble, makes only a few sounds, does not understand what others say, says only a few words, says words that are not easily understood, and does not combine words or put words together to make sentences. Family history (mother and father) of speech and language difficulties were also included as variables. Regression analyses were planned to explore the predictive relationship between this set of early indicator variables and likelihood of meeting DLD diagnostic criteria at 10 years. Results: No single parent-reported indicator uniquely accounted for a significant proportion of children with DLD at 10 years of age. Further analyses, including bivariate analyses testing the predictive power of a cumulative risk index of combined predictors (odds ratio (OR) = 0.95, confidence interval (CI) = 0.85-1.09, p = 0.447) and the moderating effect of sex (OR = 0.89, CI = 0.59-1.32, p = 0.563) were also non-significant. Conclusions: Parent reports of early indicators of DLD are well-intentioned and widely used. However, data from the Raine Study cohort suggest potential retrospective reporting bias in previous studies. We note that missing data for some indicators may have influenced the results. Implications for the impact of using early indicators as evidence to inform early identification of DLD are discussed.