scholarly journals What Our Hands Say: Exploring Gesture Use in Subgroups of Children With Language Delay

2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (4) ◽  
pp. 1319-1325 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilary O'Neill ◽  
Shula Chiat
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Expressive Language ◽  
Receptive Language ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Early Language ◽  
Study Support ◽  
Preliminary Study ◽  
Early Language Delay ◽  
Symbolic Understanding ◽  
Expressive Language Delay

Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate whether children with receptive-expressive language delay (R/ELD) and expressive-only language delay (ELD) differ in their use of gesture; to examine relationships between their use of gesture, symbolic comprehension, and language; to consider implications for assessment and for the nature of problems underlying different profiles of early language delay. Method Twelve children with ELD (8 boys, 4 girls) and 10 children with R/ELD (8 boys, 2 girls), aged 2–3 years, were assessed on measures of gesture use and symbolic comprehension. Results Performance of the R/ELD group was significantly poorer than performance of the ELD group on measures of gesture and symbolic comprehension. Gesture use and symbolic comprehension were significantly associated with receptive language, but associations with expressive language were not significant. Conclusions Findings of this study support previous research pointing to links between gesture and language development, and more specifically, between delays in gesture, symbolic understanding, and receptive rather than expressive language. Given potentially important implications for the nature of problems underlying ELD and R/ELD, and for assessment of children with language delay, this preliminary study invites further investigation comparing the use of different gesture types in samples of children matched on age and nonverbal IQ.

Communicative initiations in normal and late-talking toddlers

1991 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 419-431 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhea Paul ◽  
Mary E. Shiffer
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Expressive Language ◽  
Normal Group ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Early Language ◽  
Late Talkers ◽  
Predominant Form ◽  
Normal Language ◽  
Early Language Delay ◽  
The Difference

ABSTRACTInitiation of communication in videotaped, unstructured mother–child interactions was examined in two groups of 2-year-olds: those with normal language development and those with late acquisition of expressive language. Results revealed that the late-talkers (LTs) expressed significantly fewer intentions, but that the difference between the two groups could be accounted for entirely by the difference in one type of intention: the expression of joint attentional intentions. Investigation of the forms of expression of intentions showed that the normal group used significantly more verbal forms of expression, as expected. The predominant form for the normal group was word combinations, while the predominant form for the LTs was vocalization. The implications of these results for understanding the mechanisms involved in early language delay are discussed.

Outcome of toddlers with specific expressive language delay

1990 ◽  
Vol 11 (4) ◽  
pp. 393-407 ◽  
Author(s):  
Leslie Rescorla ◽  
Ellen Schwartz
Keyword(s):  
Expressive Language ◽  
Receptive Language ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Chronological Age ◽  
Past Tense ◽  
Auxiliary Verbs ◽  
Language Problems ◽  
Articulation Disorders ◽  
Expressive Language Delay

ABSTRACTThis article describes a follow-up of 25 boys diagnosed as having specific expressive language delay (SELD) in the 24- to 31-month age period. At the time of diagnosis, all subjects had Bayley MDI scores above 85, Reynell Receptive Language Age scores within 4 months of their chronological age, and Reynell Expressive Language Age scores at least 5 months below chronological age; most had vocabularies of fewer than 50 words and few if any word combinations. At follow-up, 16 boys were 3 years old, 7 were 3½, and 2 were 4 years of age. When seen for follow-up, half the 25 boys still had very poor expressive language. These boys were speaking at best in short, telegraphic sentences, and many had moderately severe articulation disorders with quite poor intelligibility. The 12 boys with better outcome had a range of language skills. All spoke in sentences to some extent, and each displayed some mastery of early morphemes (prepositions, plurals, articles, progressive tense, and possessives). However, few if any of the children spoke in completely fluent, syntactically complex, and morphologically correct language. Problems with copula and auxiliary verbs, with past tense inflections, and with pronouns seemed especially common. This research suggests that children with SELD at 24 to 30 months are at considerable risk for continuing language problems.

Narrative Development in Late Talkers

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (6) ◽  
pp. 1295-1303 ◽  
Author(s):  
Rhea Paul ◽  
Rita Hernandez ◽  
Lisa Taylor ◽  
Karen Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Expressive Language ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Second Grade ◽  
School Age ◽  
Normal Range ◽  
Lexical Diversity ◽  
Language History ◽  
Normal Language ◽  
Expressive Language Delay

Children with slow expressive language development (SELD) as toddlers and a control group of children with normal language development (NL) were followed to early school age. Children with SELD were, at that point, subdivided into two groups: those who had moved within the normal range of expressive language (the History of Expressive Language Delay [HELD] subgroup); and those who continued to score below the normal range in expressive language at school age (the Expressive Language Delay [ELD] subgroup). During their kindergarten, first, and second grade years, they were administered a narrative generation task. Narratives were analyzed for MLU, lexical diversity, amount of information included, proportion of complete cohesive ties, and overall stage of narrative maturity. In kindergarten, children with normal language history scored significantly higher than those with HELD and ELD on lexical diversity and narrative stage; and higher than those with ELD in proportion of complete cohesive ties. In first grade, children with normal language history again scored significantly higher than those with HELD and ELD on narrative maturity, with no other significant differences. In second grade, there were no significant differences among the groups.

Language Growth in Children With Expressive Language Delay

PEDIATRICS ◽  
1989 ◽  
Vol 83 (2) ◽  
pp. 218-227
Author(s):  
Janet E. Fischel ◽  
Grover J. Whitehurst ◽  
Marie B. Caulfield ◽  
Barbara DeBaryshe
Keyword(s):  
Cognitive Skills ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Expressive Language ◽  
Receptive Language ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Normal Range ◽  
Vocabulary Size ◽  
Mild Improvement ◽  
Language Growth ◽  
Expressive Language Delay

Developmental expressive language disorder is a frequently occurring condition in children, characterized by severe delay in the development of expressive language compared with receptive language and cognitive skills. Opinions differ regarding whether expressive language delay is a disorder worthy of active intervention or an indication of normal variation in the onset of expressive language. The purpose of this research was to follow for 5 months 26 2-year-old children in whom expressive language disorder had been carefully diagnosed to discover the rate of improvement and its predictors. Improvement was variable, with approximately one third of the children showing no improvement, one third showing mild improvement, and one third in the normal range at posttest. Nearly two thirds of the variance in improvement could be accounted for by three child variables measured by the pretest: parentally reported vocabulary size, parentally reported problems with having regular meals, and observed frequency of quiet activity not requiring the parent's management. A screening procedure involving only one of those variables, reported vocabulary size, was 81% accurate in identifying children's improvement status. The implications of these results for the management of children with expressive language disorder are discussed.

scholarly journals What Our Hands Tell Us: A Two-Year Follow-Up Investigating Outcomes in Subgroups of Children With Language Delay

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 356-366 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hilary O'Neill ◽  
Carol-Anne Murphy ◽  
Shula Chiat
Keyword(s):  
Expressive Language ◽  
Strong Predictor ◽  
Receptive Language ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Language Outcomes ◽  
Theoretical Understanding ◽  
Expressive Phonology ◽  
Language Measures ◽  
Expressive Language Delay

Purpose This study followed up children identified with expressive language delay (ELD) or receptive/expressive language delay (R/ELD) at 2 years of age, Time 1 (T1), in order to identify their language profiles at 4–5 years, Time 2 (T2), and explore relationships to T1 language, gesture use, and symbolic comprehension. Method Nineteen of 22 children were seen at follow-up (9 of 10 from R/ELD group, 10 of 12 from ELD group). T1 measures assessed receptive and expressive language, gesture use, and symbolic comprehension. At T2, we assessed receptive and expressive language, sentence repetition, and expressive phonology. Results Outcomes for the R/ELD group were significantly poorer, with all children continuing to have delay in receptive and/or expressive language compared to just 20% of the ELD group. Expressive phonology delay was common in both groups. T1 receptive language showed the most pervasive correlations with T2 language measures, but categorical performance on all three T1 measures correctly predicted language outcomes in 16–17 of the 19 children. Conclusion Findings add to evidence that receptive language is a strong predictor of outcomes. Gesture use and symbolic comprehension are also strong predictors and clinically valuable as part of play-based assessments with implications for theoretical understanding and intervention planning.

Co-Speech Gesture Input as a Support for Language Learning in Children With and Without Early Language Delay

2015 ◽  
Vol 22 (2) ◽  
pp. 61-71 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nina Capone Singleton ◽  
Jessica Saks
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Learning ◽  
Word Learning ◽  
Empirical Support ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Language Therapy ◽  
Early Language ◽  
Early Language Delay ◽  
Language Environment ◽  
Gesture Input

The current paper provides empirical support for adults using co-speech gesturing with children with and without early language delay. The discussion starts broad by showing that co-speech gestures are already in the child's language environment. We then show that encouraging co-speech gesturing by adults promotes language development and use in children. The discussion is then narrowed to the review of the finer aspects of word learning which sets the stage for how iconic gestures can be utilized in language therapy. Finally, we show that pairing iconic gestures with word models promotes word learning.

The Concurrent Validity of the Minnesota Child Development Inventory as a Measure of Young Children's Language Development

1989 ◽  
Vol 54 (1) ◽  
pp. 101-105 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Bruce Tomblin ◽  
Cynthia M. Shonrock ◽  
James C. Hardy
Keyword(s):  
Child Development ◽  
Language Development ◽  
Expressive Language ◽  
Strong Predictor ◽  
Receptive Language ◽  
Strongly Correlated ◽  
Language Measure ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Child Development Inventory ◽  
Mean Length Of Utterance

The extent to which the Minnesota Child Development Inventory (MCDI), could be used to estimate levels of language development in 2-year-old children was examined. Fifty-seven children between 23 and 28 months were given the Sequenced Inventory of Communication Development (SICD), and at the same time a parent completed the MCDI. In addition the mean length of utterance (MLU) was obtained for each child from a spontaneous speech sample. The MCDI Expressive Language scale was found to be a strong predictor of both the SICD Expressive scale and MLU. The MCDI Comprehension-Conceptual scale, presumably a receptive language measure, was moderately correlated with the SICD Receptive scale; however, it was also strongly correlated with the expressive measures. These results demonstrated that the Expressive Language scale of the MCDI was a valid predictor of expressive language for 2-year-old children. The MCDI Comprehension-Conceptual scale appeared to assess both receptive and expressive language, thus complicating its interpretation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document