Psychometric Evaluation of Lexical Diversity Indices in Spanish Narrative Samples From Children With and Without Developmental Language Disorder

2019 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
pp. 70-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Kapantzoglou ◽  
Gerasimos Fergadiotis ◽  
Alejandra Auza Buenavides
Keyword(s):  
Language Disorder ◽  
Psychometric Evaluation ◽  
Diversity Indices ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Lexical Diversity

Properties of Lexical Diversity in the Narratives of Children With Typical Language Development and Developmental Language Disorder

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 1866-1882
Author(s):  
Monique Charest ◽  
Melissa J. Skoczylas ◽  
Phyllis Schneider
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Moving Average ◽  
Group Differences ◽  
Sample Length ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Lexical Diversity ◽  
Number Of Children ◽  
Story Generation ◽  
Study Support

Purpose We examined four measures of lexical diversity in the narratives of children with typical language development (TLD) and developmental language disorder (DLD) that comprised the normative sample of the Edmonton Narrative Norms Instrument (Schneider et al., 2005). The purpose was to document the properties of each measure with respect to variations in utterance and sample length, developmental trends, and group differences. Method The sample consisted of 377 picture-elicited, story generation transcripts from children with TLD ( n = 300) and DLD ( n = 77) aged 4–9 years. We extracted the moving-average type–token ratio (MATTR) and the number of different words from the full sample, from samples equated for the number of utterances, and from samples equated for the total number of words. Results MATTR was the only measure to show no relationships to utterance or sample length. All measures showed significant positive growth with age and significant groupwise differences between children with TLD and DLD. However, the magnitude of age effects and differentiation between groups varied considerably across measures. Across measures, there were significant differences in the number of children with DLD who were identified with low lexical diversity relative to their same-age peers in the TLD group. Conclusion The results of this study support the view that different measures of lexical diversity may be appropriate for different clinical purposes. It is important for clinicians to understand how measures of lexical diversity function in order to make educated choices among measures and ensure appropriate interpretation.

scholarly journals Rječnička raznolikost pisanih tekstova osoba s razvojnim jezičnim poremećajem

2020 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 14-30
Author(s):  
Gordana Hržica ◽  
Sara Košutar ◽  
Mateja Kramarić
Keyword(s):  
Language Production ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Moving Average ◽  
Written Language ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Written Discourse ◽  
Lexical Diversity ◽  
Written Narratives ◽  
Spoken Discourse ◽  
Age Range

Developmental language disorder (DLD) is one of the most common language disorders in preschool and school age, and it also persists later in life. Children with DLD show a range of expressive and/or receptive difficulties in language, including vocabulary acquisition. The goal of this research was to explore the differences between persons with developmental language disorder and persons with typical language development (TLD) in lexical diversity. Earlier research focused on spoken discourse of younger speakers. In the present research, written discourse of speakers covering a broad age range was explored. Twenty participants with DLD and 19 with TLD were selected from the Croatian Corpus of Non-professional Written Language (Kuvač Kraljević, Hržica and Kologranić Belić, in press). They produced narrative language samples based on the Expression, Reception and Recall of Narrative Instrument (ERRNI; Bishop, 2004). To measure lexical diversity, four measures were calculated: the number of different words (NDW) and type-token ratio (TTR) on a restricted number of words, the moving average type-token ration (MATTR) and lexical diversity D on full-length samples. The independent samples t-test was used to compare the two groups. Participants with DLD had significantly lower results on all four measures. This leads to the conclusion that all four measures can differentiate groups of participants with different language status. Persons with DLD showed difficulties in using vocabulary when producing written narratives, which is a demanding language production task.

scholarly journals Psychometric Evaluation of Lexical Diversity Indices: Assessing Length Effects

2015 ◽  
Vol 58 (3) ◽  
pp. 840-852 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gerasimos Fergadiotis ◽  
Heather Harris Wright ◽  
Samuel B. Green
Keyword(s):  
Psychometric Evaluation ◽  
Diversity Indices ◽  
Lexical Diversity ◽  
Length Effects

Nonword Repetition Skills in Gulf Arabic–Speaking Children With Developmental Language Disorder

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (11) ◽  
pp. 3700-3713
Author(s):  
Saleh Shaalan
Keyword(s):  
Phonological Processing ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Nonword Repetition ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Gulf Arabic ◽  
Arabic Speaking ◽  
Phonological Complexity

Purpose This study examined the performance of Gulf Arabic–speaking children with developmental language disorder (DLD) on a Gulf Arabic nonword repetition (GA-NWR) test and compared it to their age- and language-matched groups. We also investigated the role of syllable length, wordlikeness, and phonological complexity in light of NWR theories. Method A new GA-NWR test was conducted with three groups of Gulf Arabic–speaking children: school-age children with DLD, language-matched controls (LCs), and age-matched controls (ACs). The test consisted of two- and three-syllable words that either had no clusters, medial clusters, final clusters, or medial + final clusters. Results The GA-NWR distinguished between the performance of children with DLD and the LC and AC groups. Results showed significant syllable length, wordlikeness, and phonological complexity effects. Differences between the DLD and typically developing groups were seen in two- and three-syllable nonwords; however, when compared on nonwords with no clusters, children with DLD were not significantly different from the LC group. Conclusions The GA-NWR test differentiated between children with DLD and their ACs and LCs. Findings, therefore, support its clinical utility in this variety of Arabic. Results showed that phonological processing factors, such as phonological complexity, may have stronger effects when compared to syllable length effects. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12996812

Do Children With Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) Have Difficulties With Interference Control, Visuospatial Working Memory, and Selective Attention? Developmental Patterns and the Role of Severity and Persistence of DLD

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (9) ◽  
pp. 3036-3050
Author(s):  
Elma Blom ◽  
Tessel Boerma
Keyword(s):  
Working Memory ◽  
Selective Attention ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Visuospatial Working Memory ◽  
Interference Control ◽  
Developmental Patterns ◽  
Search Tasks ◽  
The Impact

Purpose Many children with developmental language disorder (DLD) have weaknesses in executive functioning (EF), specifically in tasks testing interference control and working memory. It is unknown how EF develops in children with DLD, if EF abilities are related to DLD severity and persistence, and if EF weaknesses expand to selective attention. This study aimed to address these gaps. Method Data from 78 children with DLD and 39 typically developing (TD) children were collected at three times with 1-year intervals. At Time 1, the children were 5 or 6 years old. Flanker, Dot Matrix, and Sky Search tasks tested interference control, visuospatial working memory, and selective attention, respectively. DLD severity was based on children's language ability. DLD persistence was based on stability of the DLD diagnosis. Results Performance on all tasks improved in both groups. TD children outperformed children with DLD on interference control. No differences were found for visuospatial working memory and selective attention. An interference control gap between the DLD and TD groups emerged between Time 1 and Time 2. Severity and persistence of DLD were related to interference control and working memory; the impact on working memory was stronger. Selective attention was unrelated to DLD severity and persistence. Conclusions Age and DLD severity and persistence determine whether or not children with DLD show EF weaknesses. Interference control is most clearly impaired in children with DLD who are 6 years and older. Visuospatial working memory is impaired in children with severe and persistent DLD. Selective attention is spared.

Considering the Language Disorder Label Debate From a School Speech-Language Pathology Lens

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 47-54
Author(s):  
Kimberly A. Murza ◽  
Barbara J. Ehren
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Public Awareness ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Speech Language Pathologist ◽  
School Based ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Education Act

Purpose The purpose of this article is to situate the recent language disorder label debate within a school's perspective. As described in two recent The ASHA Leader articles, there is international momentum to change specific language impairment to developmental language disorder . Proponents of this change cite increased public awareness and research funding as part of the rationale. However, it is unclear whether this label debate is worthwhile or even practical for the school-based speech-language pathologist (SLP). A discussion of the benefits and challenges to a shift in language disorder labels is provided. Conclusions Although there are important arguments for consistency in labeling childhood language disorder, the reality of a label change in U.S. schools is hard to imagine. School-based services are driven by eligibility through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which has its own set of labels. There are myriad reasons why advocating for the developmental language disorder label may not be the best use of SLPs' time, perhaps the most important of which is that school SLPs have other urgent priorities.

Narrative Language Markers of Arabic Language Development and Impairment

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (10) ◽  
pp. 3472-3487
Author(s):  
Natalia V. Rakhlin ◽  
Nan Li ◽  
Abdullah Aljughaiman ◽  
Elena L. Grigorenko
Keyword(s):  
Language Development ◽  
Standardized Test ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Arabic Language ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Standardized Measures ◽  
Verb Agreement ◽  
Language Groups ◽  
Specificity And Sensitivity ◽  
Omission Errors

Purpose We examined indices of narrative microstructure as metrics of language development and impairment in Arabic-speaking children. We examined their age sensitivity, correlations with standardized measures, and ability to differentiate children with average language and language impairment. Method We collected story narratives from 177 children (54.2% boys) between 3.08 and 10.92 years old ( M = 6.25, SD = 1.67) divided into six age bands. Each child also received standardized measures of spoken language (Receptive and Expressive Vocabulary, Sentence Imitation, and Pseudoword Repetition). Several narrative indices of microstructure were examined in each age band. Children were divided into (suspected) developmental language disorder and typical language groups using the standardized test scores and compared on the narrative indicators. Sensitivity and specificity of the narrative indicators that showed group differences were calculated. Results The measures that showed age sensitivity included subject omission error rate, number of object clitics, correct use of subject–verb agreement, and mean length of utterance in words. The developmental language disorder group scored higher on subject omission errors (Cohen's d = 0.55) and lower on correct use of subject–verb agreement (Cohen's d = 0.48) than the typical language group. The threshold for impaired performance with the highest combination of specificity and sensitivity was 35th percentile. Conclusions Several indices of narrative microstructure appear to be valid metrics for documenting language development in children acquiring Gulf Arabic. Subject omission errors and correct use of subject–verb agreement differentiate children with typical and atypical levels of language development.

Emergent Literacy in Spanish-Speaking Children With Developmental Language Disorder: Preliminary Findings of Delays in Comprehension- and Code-Related Skills

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (12) ◽  
pp. 4193-4207
Author(s):  
Amy S. Pratt ◽  
John A. Grinstead ◽  
Rebecca J. McCauley
Keyword(s):  
Emergent Literacy ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Literacy Skills ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Writing Ability ◽  
Transparent Orthography ◽  
Spanish Speaking ◽  
Phonological Structure ◽  
Name Writing

Purpose This exploratory study describes the emergent literacy skills of children with developmental language disorder (DLD) who speak Spanish, a language with a simple phonological structure and transparent orthography. We examine differences between children with DLD and their typically developing (TD) peers on a battery of emergent literacy measures. Method Participants included 15 monolingual Spanish-speaking children with DLD (who did not present with cognitive difficulties) and 15 TD controls matched for age, gender, and socioeconomic status, ranging in age from 3;10 to 6;6 (years;months; M age = 4;11). All children completed a battery of comprehension-related emergent literacy tasks (narrative retell, print concept knowledge) and code-related emergent literacy tasks (beginning sound, rhyming awareness, alphabet knowledge, and name-writing ability). Results On average, children with DLD performed significantly worse than TD controls on a battery of comprehension- and code-related emergent literacy measures. On all code-related skills except rhyming, children with DLD were more likely than their TD peers to score “at risk.” Conclusions The results suggest some universality in the effect of DLD on reading development. Difficulties with emergent literacy that are widely documented in English-speaking children with DLD were similarly observed in Spanish-speaking children with DLD. Future research should explore long-term reading outcomes in Spanish for children with DLD.

A 200-Year History of the Study of Childhood Language Disorders of Unknown Origin: Changes in Terminology

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence B. Leonard
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Unknown Origin ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
The Past ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Many

Purpose The current “specific language impairment” and “developmental language disorder” discussion might lead to important changes in how we refer to children with language disorders of unknown origin. The field has seen other changes in terminology. This article reviews many of these changes. Method A literature review of previous clinical labels was conducted, and possible reasons for the changes in labels were identified. Results References to children with significant yet unexplained deficits in language ability have been part of the scientific literature since, at least, the early 1800s. Terms have changed from those with a neurological emphasis to those that do not imply a cause for the language disorder. Diagnostic criteria have become more explicit but have become, at certain points, too narrow to represent the wider range of children with language disorders of unknown origin. Conclusions The field was not well served by the many changes in terminology that have transpired in the past. A new label at this point must be accompanied by strong efforts to recruit its adoption by clinical speech-language pathologists and the general public.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document