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.

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.

scholarly journals Developmental Language Disorder: Applications for Advocacy, Research, and Clinical Service

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 38-46 ◽  
Author(s):  
Karla K. McGregor ◽  
Lisa Goffman ◽  
Amanda Owen Van Horne ◽  
Tiffany P. Hogan ◽  
Lizbeth H. Finestack
Keyword(s):  
Public Schools ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Scientific Progress ◽  
The United States ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Language Deficit ◽  
English Speaking

Purpose The CATALISE group (Bishop, Snowling, Thompson, Greenhalgh, & CATALISE Consortium, 2016; Bishop, Snowling, Thompson, Greenhalgh, & CATALISE-2 Consortium, 2017) recommended that the term developmental language disorder (DLD) be used to refer to neurodevelopmental language deficit. In this tutorial, we explain the appropriate application of the term and present advantages in adhering to the CATALISE recommendations. Conclusion Both specific language impairment and DLD refer to a neurodevelopmental condition that impairs spoken language, is long-standing and, is not associated with any known causal condition. The applications of the terms specific language impairment and DLD differ in breadth and the extent to which identification depends upon functional impact. Use of the term DLD would link advocacy efforts in the United States to those in other English-speaking countries. The criteria for identifying DLD presented in the CATALISE consensus offer opportunities for scientific progress while aligning well with practice in U.S. public schools.

The Specific Language Impairment/Developmental Language Disorders Forum: Fostering a Discussion of Terminology

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 3-5 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laura Green
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Public School ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Language Deficits ◽  
Developmental Language Disorders ◽  
Specific Language

Purpose This prologue provides an introduction to the SIG 1 Perspectives forum addressing use of a more recently applied term, developmental language disorder (DLD), as well as a term that has been used in research for several decades, specific language impairment (SLI), to describe children who exhibit language deficits. Included are brief summaries of the 5 articles that comprise the forum. Conclusion The articles in this SLI/DLD forum offer perspectives on the use of both terms. Implications include their application in clinical practice, advocacy, research, treatment, funding, and public school speech/language services.

Developmental Language Disorder and the Assessment of Spoken Language

2021 ◽  
pp. 155-170
Author(s):  
Carol-Anne Murphy ◽  
Pauline Frizelle ◽  
Cristina McKean
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Skills ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Language Abilities ◽  
Language Sample Analysis ◽  
Language Sample

Developmental language disorder (DLD), previously known as specific language impairment (SLI), is a long-term developmental disorder affecting approximately 7.5% of children. Language abilities in children with DLD are variable and can be challenging to ascertain with confidence. This chapter aims to discuss some of the challenges associated with assessing the language skills of children with DLD through an overview of different forms of language assessment including standardized language testing, language sample analysis, and observations. Uses and limitations of the different forms of assessment are considered, bearing in mind the different functions of assessment and the need to gain a full understanding of children’s profiles of strength and weakness and communicative functioning in context. The authors conclude with requirements for best practice in assessment and promising avenues of development in this area.

scholarly journals Spoken Word Learning in Children with Developmental Language Disorder or Dyslexia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Adlof ◽  
Lauren Baron ◽  
Bethany A Bell ◽  
Joanna Scoggins
Keyword(s):  
Word Learning ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Learning Difficulties ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Vocabulary Knowledge ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Learning Abilities

Purpose: Word learning difficulties have been documented in multiple studies involving children with dyslexia and developmental language disorder (DLD; see also specific language impairment (SLI)). However, no previous studies have directly contrasted word learning in these two frequently co-occurring disorders. We examined word learning in second grade students with DLD-only and dyslexia-only as compared to each other, peers with both disorders (DLD+dyslexia), and peers with typical development (TD). We hypothesized that children with dyslexia-only and DLD-only would show differences in word learning due to differences in phonological and semantic skills. Method: Children (N = 244) were taught eight novel pseudowords paired with unfamiliar objects. The teaching script included multiple exposures to the phonological form, the pictured object, a verbal semantic description of the object, and spaced retrieval practice opportunities. Word learning was assessed immediately after instruction with tasks requiring recall or recognition of the phonological and semantic information. Results: Children with dyslexia-only performed significantly better on existing vocabulary measures than their peers with DLD-only. On experimental word learning measures, children in the dyslexia-only and DLD+dyslexia groups showed significantly poorer performance than TD children on all word learning tasks. Children with DLD-only differed significantly from the TD group on a single word learning task assessing verbal semantic recall. Conclusions: Overall, results indicated that children with dyslexia display broad word learning difficulties extending beyond the phonological domain; however, this contrasted with their relatively strong performance on measures of existing vocabulary knowledge. More research is needed to understand relations between word learning abilities and overall vocabulary knowledge and how to close vocabulary gaps for children with both disorders.

scholarly journals Clinical Intersections Among Idiopathic Language Disorder, Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder, and Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (10) ◽  
pp. 3263-3276
Author(s):  
Sean M. Redmond
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Occurrence Rate ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Communication Disorder ◽  
Statistical Manual ◽  
Hyperactivity Disorder ◽  
Diagnostic And Statistical Manual ◽  
Pragmatic Communication

Purpose Estimates of the expected co-occurrence rates of idiopathic language disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) provide a confusing and inconsistent picture. Potential sources for discrepancies considered so far include measurement and ascertainment biases ( Redmond, 2016a , 2016b ). In this research symposium forum article, the potential impact of applying different criteria to the observed co-occurrence rate is examined through an appraisal of the literature and an empirical demonstration. Method Eighty-five cases were selected from the Redmond, Ash, et al. (2019) study sample. Standard scores from clinical measures collected on K–3rd grade students were used to assign language impairment status, nonverbal impairment status, social (pragmatic) communication disorder status, and ADHD status. Criteria extrapolated from the specific language impairment ( Stark & Tallal, 1981 ), developmental language disorder ( Bishop et al., 2017 ), and Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition language disorder ( American Psychiatric Association, 2013 ) designations were applied. Results The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition language disorder designation and its separation of language disorder from the social (pragmatic) communication disorder designation provided the clearest segregation of idiopathic language deficits from elevated ADHD symptoms, showing only a 2% co-occurrence rate. In contrast, applying the broader developmental language disorder designation raised the observed co-occurrence rate to 22.3%. The specific language impairment designation yielded an intermediate value of 16.9%. Conclusions Co-occurrence rates varied as a function of designation adopted. The presence of pragmatic symptoms exerted a stronger influence on observed co-occurrence rates than low nonverbal abilities. Impacts on clinical management and research priorities are discussed. Presentation Video https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.13063751

Diagnosis of Developmental Language Disorder in Research Studies

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (8) ◽  
pp. 2777-2788
Author(s):  
Hallie Nitido ◽  
Elena Plante
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
The United States ◽  
Diagnostic Methods ◽  
Identification Accuracy ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Cut Score ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
High Level

Purpose The aim of this study was to investigate the extent to which researchers in the field of developmental language disorder are utilizing validated methods to diagnose their research participants. Method We examined 90 research articles published from 2015 to 2019 that included English-speaking participants from the United States who were identified as having a developmental language disorder or specific language impairment. From these articles, we identified the tests and measures used to identify participants and classify them as healthy or impaired. We then consulted the test manuals and the literature to find information on sensitivity and specificity of the test and the evidence-based cut score that maximized identification accuracy. Results Of the 90 articles examined, 38 (42%) were found to reflect validated diagnostic methods, and 51 (58%) did not. Conclusion Our results illustrate that validated methods are used less than half of the time even by those who should have a high level of expertise and despite calls for increasing scientific rigor in research practices.

scholarly journals Lexical–Semantic Cues Induce Sound Pattern Stability in Children With Developmental Language Disorder

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (12) ◽  
pp. 4109-4126
Author(s):  
Sara Benham ◽  
Lisa Goffman
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Sound Production ◽  
Semantic Information ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Lexical Semantic ◽  
Word Forms ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Novel Words

Purpose When learning novel word forms, preschoolers with developmental language disorder (DLD; also known as specific language impairment ) produce speech targets inaccurately and with a high degree of intraword variability. The aim of the current study is to specify whether and how layering lexical–semantic information onto novel phonological strings would induce increased organization of sound production patterns. Method Twenty-one preschoolers with DLD and 21 peers with typical language (ranging in age from 4;1 to 5;11 [years;months]) imitated multiple renditions of novel words, half with (i.e., words) and half without (i.e., nonwords) a linked visual referent. Methods from network science were used to assess the stability and patterning of syllable sequences. Sound accuracy was also measured. Results Children with DLD were less accurate and more variable than their typical peers. However, once word forms were associated with a visual referent, network stability, but not accuracy, improved for children with DLD. Conclusions Children with DLD showed significant word form deficits as they acquired novel words and nonwords. The inclusion of a meaningful referent resulted in increased sound sequence stability, suggesting that lexical–semantic information provides a bootstrap for phonological organization in children with DLD.

scholarly journals “Tell Me About Your Child”: A Grounded Theory Study of Mothers' Understanding of Language Disorder

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 819-840 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrea C. Ash ◽  
Tyler T. Christopulos ◽  
Sean M. Redmond
Keyword(s):  
Grounded Theory ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Speech Language Pathologist ◽  
Lack Of Information ◽  
Diagnostic Labels ◽  
Psychological Harm ◽  
Language Pathology

Purpose The purpose of this study was to generate a theory grounded in data explaining caregivers' understanding of their child's language disorder and the perceived role of speech-language pathologists in facilitating this knowledge. Method This study employed grounded theory as a conceptual framework. Qualitative data were generated based on semistructured interviews conducted with 12 mothers of children who had received speech-language pathology services. Results The following themes emerged from the data analysis: (a) Many mothers reported receiving confusing or irrelevant diagnostic terms for language disorder, (b) mothers of children with language disorders were distressed about their children's language problems, (c) mothers did not always trust or understand their children's speech-language pathologist, and (d) mothers were satisfied with the interventions their child had been receiving. Mothers described their children's language disorder using a total of 23 labels, most of which were not useful for accessing meaningful information about the nature of their child's communication problem. Generally, mothers reported they did not receive language-related diagnostic labels from speech-language pathologists for their child's language disorder. Conclusions Two theories were generated from the results: (a) Lack of information provided to mothers about their child's language disorder causes mothers psychological harm that appears to be long lasting. (b) Difficulties in successfully relaying information about language disorders to parents result in negative perceptions of speech-language pathology. Implications and future directions are discussed. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12177390

scholarly journals Spoken Word Learning in Children With Developmental Language Disorder or Dyslexia

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Suzanne M. Adlof ◽  
Lauren S. Baron ◽  
Bethany A. Bell ◽  
Joanna Scoggins
Keyword(s):  
Word Learning ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Learning Difficulties ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Vocabulary Knowledge ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Learning Abilities

Purpose Word learning difficulties have been documented in multiple studies involving children with dyslexia and developmental language disorder (DLD; see also specific language impairment). However, no previous studies have directly contrasted word learning in these two frequently co-occurring disorders. We examined word learning in second-grade students with DLD-only and dyslexia-only as compared to each other, peers with both disorders (DLD + dyslexia), and peers with typical development. We hypothesized that children with dyslexia-only and DLD-only would show differences in word learning due to differences in their core language strengths and weaknesses. Method Children ( N = 244) were taught eight novel pseudowords paired with unfamiliar objects. The teaching script included multiple exposures to the phonological form, the pictured object, a verbal semantic description of the object, and spaced retrieval practice opportunities. Word learning was assessed immediately after instruction with tasks requiring recall or recognition of the phonological and semantic information. Results Children with dyslexia-only performed significantly better on existing vocabulary measures than their peers with DLD-only. On experimental word learning measures, children in the dyslexia-only and DLD + dyslexia groups showed significantly poorer performance than typically developing children on all word learning tasks. Children with DLD-only differed significantly from the TD group on a single word learning task assessing verbal semantic recall. Conclusions Overall, results indicated that children with dyslexia display broad word learning difficulties extending beyond the phonological domain; however, this contrasted with their relatively strong performance on measures of existing vocabulary knowledge. More research is needed to understand relations between word learning abilities and overall vocabulary knowledge and how to close vocabulary gaps for children with both disorders. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14832717

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document