Prevention in specific language disorders: Preschool age screening

2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 111-113
Author(s):  
Serena Gentile ◽  
◽  
Vincenza Piraino ◽  
Barbara Gaudio ◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Language Disorders ◽  
Preschool Age ◽  
Specific Language

Learning and Generalization Components of Morphological Acquisition by Children With Specific Language Impairment

1994 ◽  
Vol 37 (6) ◽  
pp. 1406-1413 ◽  
Author(s):  
Linda Swisher ◽  
David Snow
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Vocabulary Learning ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Rule Induction ◽  
Preschool Age ◽  
Memory Storage ◽  
Skills Acquisition ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Chi Square Analysis

Children with specific language impairment (SLI) have particular difficulty acquiring bound morphemes. To determine whether these morphological deficits spring from impairments of rule-induction or memory (storage/access) skills, 25 preschool-age children with normal language (NL) and 25 age-matched children with SLI were presented with a novel vocabulary and novel bound-morpheme learning task. A chi square analysis revealed that the children with SLI had significantly lower vocabulary learning levels than NL children. In addition, there was tentative evidence that a dependency relationship existed in some children between success in vocabulary learning and proficiency in generalizing a trained bound morpheme to untrained vocabulary stems. These findings are predicted by the storage/access but not the rule-induction theory of specific language impairment. They suggest that intervention targeting bound-morpheme skills acquisition in children with SLI might include attention to vocabulary development.

Specific language disorders and season of birth: Underlying environmental factors or chance findings?

2012 ◽  
Vol 34 (8) ◽  
pp. 836-840
Author(s):  
Alessandro Ghezzo ◽  
Matteo Chiappedi ◽  
Antonina Ballerini ◽  
Giorgio Seragni ◽  
Michela Zanette ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Environmental Factors ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Season Of Birth ◽  
Specific Language

Children with specific language impairment. Laurence B. Leonard. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1998. Pp. 339.

2002 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 307-311
Author(s):  
Lynne E. Hewitt
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Unknown Origin ◽  
Comprehensive Review ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Sensory Deficits ◽  
Nature Versus Nurture ◽  
Linguistic Impairment

Laurence Leonard is one of the most prolific and well-respected researchers in the area of specific language impairment (SLI) in children, and he is well qualified to write a book surveying the topic. SLI is a disorder of unknown origin, which appears to have a genetic component, causing delays and disorders of language development in children of normal nonverbal intelligence with no significant medical, emotional, or sensory deficits. The primary purpose of this book is to provide a comprehensive review of research in the field of SLI, and Leonard has the minute knowledge necessary to succeed at the task. The coverage in the book reaches back to the earliest nineteenth-century descriptions of children who fit the profile and then moves forward quickly to the massive literature that has accumulated on the topic in the last 20 years. Following the introductory historical and definitional section, Leonard goes on to describe the nature of the linguistic impairment in SLI, including important cross-linguistic accounts and nonlinguistic cognitive issues. The book also covers hypotheses of causation, in a “nature versus nurture” section, and clinical issues of assessment and intervention. Part V, on theory, may be of most interest to psycholinguists who are not language disorders specialists. Overall, there is no doubt that this book is both an excellent introduction for those unfamiliar with SLI and a welcome overview and resource for experts. Leonard's knowledge is encyclopedic, his presentation erudite, and his grasp of detail unfailingly impressive.

Bilingualism as a kind of therapy?

2010 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 297-303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Aafke Hulk ◽  
Sharon Unsworth
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Child Language ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Bilingual Development ◽  
Challenging Question

In her very interesting Keynote Article, Johanne Paradis gives a clear overview of recent research at the interface of bilingual development and child language disorders, and highlights its theoretical and clinical implications. She raises the challenging question of “whether bilingualism can be viewed as a kind of ‘therapy’ for SLI.” At first sight, this is perhaps a surprising question, because one of the predominant views in the literature is that bilingual children with specific language impairment (SLI) will exhibit difficulties and perhaps a “double delay.” It is this challenging question that we consider in more detail here.

scholarly journals Alternative Tense and Agreement Morpheme Measures for Assessing Grammatical Deficits During the Preschool Period

2013 ◽  
Vol 56 (2) ◽  
pp. 542-552 ◽  
Author(s):  
Allison Gladfelter ◽  
Laurence B. Leonard
Keyword(s):  
Sensitivity And Specificity ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Spontaneous Speech ◽  
Preschool Age ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Composite Measure ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Preschool Period ◽  
Preschool Age Children

Purpose P. A. Hadley and H. Short (2005) developed a set of measures designed to assess the emerging diversity and productivity of tense and agreement (T/A) morpheme use by 2-year-olds. The authors extended 2 of these measures to the preschool years to evaluate their utility in distinguishing children with specific language impairment (SLI) from their typically developing (TD) peers. Method Spontaneous speech samples from 55 children (25 with SLI, 30 TD) at 2 different age levels (4;0–4;6 [years;months] and 5;0–5;6) were analyzed, using a traditional T/A morphology composite that assessed accuracy, and the Hadley and Short measures of Tense Marker Total (assessing diversity of T/A morpheme use) and Productivity Score (assessing productivity of major T/A categories). Results All 3 measures showed acceptable levels of sensitivity and specificity. In addition, similar differences in levels of productivity across T/A categories were seen in the TD and SLI groups. Conclusion The Tense Marker Total and Productivity Score measures seem to have considerable utility for preschool-age children, in that they provide information about specific T/A morphemes and major T/A categories that are not distinguished using the traditional composite measure. The findings are discussed within the framework of the gradual morphosyntactic learning account.

scholarly journals Are Specific Language Impairment and Dyslexia Distinct Disorders?

2005 ◽  
Vol 48 (6) ◽  
pp. 1378-1396 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hugh W. Catts ◽  
Suzanne M. Adlof ◽  
Tiffany P. Hogan ◽  
Susan Ellis Weismer
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Phonological Processing ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Representative Sample ◽  
Developmental Disorders ◽  
Reading Development ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Nonword Repetition ◽  
Typical Development ◽  
Specific Language

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether specific language impairment (SLI) and dyslexia are distinct developmental disorders. Method: Study 1 investigated the overlap between SLI identified in kindergarten and dyslexia identified in 2nd, 4th, or 8th grades in a representative sample of 527 children. Study 2 examined phonological processing in a subsample of participants, including 21 children with dyslexia only, 43 children with SLI only, 18 children with SLI and dyslexia, and 165 children with typical language/reading development. Measures of phonological awareness and nonword repetition were considered. Results: Study 1 showed limited but statistically significant overlap between SLI and dyslexia. Study 2 found that children with dyslexia or a combination of dyslexia and SLI performed significantly less well on measures of phonological processing than did children with SLI only and those with typical development. Children with SLI only showed only mild deficits in phonological processing compared with typical children. Conclusions: These results support the view that SLI and dyslexia are distinct but potentially comorbid developmental language disorders. A deficit in phonological processing is closely associated with dyslexia but not with SLI when it occurs in the absence of dyslexia.

scholarly journals Working Memory and Linguistic Performance of Dual Language Learners With and Without Developmental Language Disorders

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (3) ◽  
pp. 1301-1306
Author(s):  
Mark M. Guiberson ◽  
Barbara L. Rodríguez
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Language Learners ◽  
Dual Language ◽  
Memory Task ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Verbal Working Memory ◽  
Preschool Age ◽  
Nonword Repetition ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Spanish Speaking

Purpose This research note describes the use of working memory measures as potential indicators of developmental language disorders (DLD) in preschool-age dual language learners from Spanish-speaking backgrounds. This report is an extension of early work, completed by the same authors that described the diagnostic accuracy of a Spanish nonword repetition task. Method One hundred thirty Spanish-speaking families with preschool-age children participated; 37 children had DLD, and 93 were typically developing. Families were recruited from early childhood programs in three states in the western region of the United States. Working memory and linguistic measures were collected from the children; parents completed a vocabulary checklist and reported on their child's longest utterances. Results Nonverbal working memory was not associated with other measures, but verbal working memory was associated with linguistic measures. Although there were no group differences on nonverbal working memory, group differences (DLD vs. typical development) were detected on verbal working memory and linguistic measures. Verbal working memory combined with vocabulary scores resulted in 79% of cases correctly classified. Conclusions Working memory tasks yielded different results depending on the type of task (verbal vs. nonverbal). Outcomes from this study showed that a nonverbal working memory task (hand movement) was not useful in distinguishing preschool-age dual language children with DLD from typical peers, but a verbal working memory task (nonword repetition) may be useful if combined with other more robust linguistic measures.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document