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.

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.

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.

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.

The Speech-Language Assessment of English Language Learning Students: A Non-Standardized Approach

2013 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 95-101 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert Kraemer ◽  
Allison Coltisor ◽  
Meesha Kalra ◽  
Megan Martinez ◽  
Bailey Savage ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Language Learning ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
English Language ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
The United States ◽  
English Language Learning ◽  
Assessment Practices ◽  
Evidence Based ◽  
English Speaking

English language learning (ELL) children suspected of having specific-language impairment (SLI) should be assessed using the same methods as monolingual English-speaking children born and raised in the United States. In an effort to reduce over- and under-identification of ELL children as SLI, speech-language pathologists (SLP) must employ nonbiased assessment practices. This article presents several evidence-based, nonstandarized assessment practices SLPs can implement in place of standardized tools. As the number of ELL children SLPs come in contact with increases, the need for well-trained and knowledgeable SLPs grows. The goal of the authors is to present several well-establish, evidence-based assessment methods for assessing ELL children suspected of SLI.

scholarly journals Number dissimilarities facilitate the comprehension of relative clauses in children with (Grammatical) Specific Language Impairment

2013 ◽  
Vol 41 (4) ◽  
pp. 811-841 ◽  
Author(s):  
FLAVIA ADANI ◽  
MATTEO FORGIARINI ◽  
MARIA TERESA GUASTI ◽  
HEATHER K. J. VAN DER LELY
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Relative Clauses ◽  
Sentence Comprehension ◽  
Head Noun ◽  
Receptive Vocabulary ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Subject And Object ◽  
English Speaking

ABSTRACTThis study investigates whether number dissimilarities on subject and object DPs facilitate the comprehension of subject- and object-extracted centre-embedded relative clauses in children with Grammatical Specific Language Impairment (G-SLI). We compared the performance of a group of English-speaking children with G-SLI (mean age: 12;11) with that of two groups of younger typically developing (TD) children, matched on grammar and receptive vocabulary, respectively. All groups were more accurate on subject-extracted relative clauses than object-extracted ones and, crucially, they all showed greater accuracy for sentences with dissimilar number features (i.e., one singular, one plural) on the head noun and the embedded DP. These findings are interpreted in the light of current psycholinguistic models of sentence comprehension in TD children and provide further insight into the linguistic nature of G-SLI.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document