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.

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.

Symbolic Play of Children With Language Impairment

1997 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 468-479 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michael W. Casby
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Language Impairments ◽  
Symbolic Play ◽  
Developmental Language Disorders ◽  
Specific Language

There have been a number of studies that have reported on the symbolic play abilities of children assessed as demonstrating developmental language disorders or specific language impairment. In general, this research has reported significant differences in the symbolic play abilities of children with language impairment and those developing language normally. In most, though interestingly, not all cases, the differences reflected less developed symbolic play of the children with language impairments. It will be argued here that these reported differences should not be interpreted as demonstrative of marked deficits in the general representational or specific symbolic play competence of children with language impairments. It will be argued further that part of the research conducted to date on the symbolic play abilities of children with language impairment has been confounded by the encroachment of language into the research procedures, that the level of play often investigated has not been unquestionably symbolic in nature, and that the actual differences in symbolic play have not been substantial.

Trying to Make Sense of Developmental Language Disorders

1998 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 35-44 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alan G. Kamhi
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Possible Worlds ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Clinical Population ◽  
Developmental Language Disorders ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Ideal World ◽  
Identification Criterion ◽  
Research Populations

In this article, I share my thoughts concerning what children with developmental language disorders should be called, how they should be defined, and how we might differentiate children with specific language impairment (SLI) from other children with developmental language disorders. Among other things, I attempt to show why a lack of congruence between clinical and research constructs should be expected. Researchers and clinicians use different identification criterion and procedures because clinical and educational objectives are different from research objectives. While recognizing these differences, I suggest several possible ways to differentiate a subgroup of children with SLI from the general population of children with developmental language disorders without using nonverbal IQ. Even if researchers are able to identify this unique group of children, clinicians may never embrace the SLI construct. In the best of all possible worlds, clinicians would be familiar with how researchers define SLI and appreciate the value of research that attempts to identify distinct subgroups of children with developmental language disorders. Researchers, in this ideal world, would recognize and acknowledge the lack of congruence between the research populations of SLI and the larger clinical population of children with developmental language disorders.

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.

scholarly journals A Preliminary Comparison of Reading Subtypes in a Clinical Sample of Children With Specific Language Impairment

2017 ◽  
Vol 60 (9) ◽  
pp. 2680-2686 ◽  
Author(s):  
Krystal L. Werfel ◽  
Hannah Krimm
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Clinical Sample ◽  
Language Deficits ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Reading Impairment ◽  
Word Level ◽  
Specific Reading ◽  
Preliminary Study ◽  
Reading Impairments

Purpose The purpose of this preliminary study was to (a) compare the pattern of reading subtypes among a clinical sample of children with specific language impairment (SLI) and children with typical language and (b) evaluate phonological and nonphonological language deficits within each reading impairment subtype. Method Participants were 32 children with SLI and 39 children with typical language in Grades 2 through 4. Each child was classified as demonstrating 1 of 4 reading subtypes on the basis of word-level and text-level skills: typical reading, dyslexia, specific reading comprehension impairment, or garden variety reading impairment. In addition, phonological and nonphonological language skills were evaluated. Results Children with SLI were more likely to exhibit reading impairments than children with typical language. Children with SLI were more likely to exhibit text-level deficits than children with typical language. Phonological language deficits were observed in children with word-level deficits, and nonphonological language deficits were observed in children with text-level deficits. Conclusions The results indicate that the patterns of reading subtypes differ among children with SLI and children with typical language. The findings highlight the importance of simultaneously but separately considering word-level and text-level skills in studies of reading impairment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document