Early Language Delay and Risk for Language Impairment

2008 ◽  
Vol 15 (3) ◽  
pp. 93-100 ◽  
Author(s):  
Erica M. Ellis ◽  
Donna J. Thal
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Early Language ◽  
Late Talkers ◽  
Late Talker ◽  
Early Language Delay ◽  
Clinically Significant ◽  
Normal Variability

Abstract Clinicians are often faced with the difficult task of deciding whether a late talker shows normal variability or has a clinically significant language disorder. This article provides an overview of research investigating identification, characteristics, outcomes, and predictors of late talkers. Clinical implications for speech-language pathologists in the identification and treatment of children who are late talkers are discussed.

Sex differences in early language delay and in developmental language disorder

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Maria Chilosi ◽  
Paola Brovedani ◽  
Paola Cipriani ◽  
Claudia Casalini
Keyword(s):  
Sex Differences ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Early Language ◽  
Early Language Delay

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.

Early Language Delay and Specific Language Impairment

2011 ◽  
Vol 17 (2) ◽  
pp. 160-169 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jayne Moyle ◽  
Stephanie F. Stokes ◽  
Thomas Klee
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Early Language ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Early Language Delay

Outcomes of Early Language Delay

2003 ◽  
Vol 46 (3) ◽  
pp. 544-560 ◽  
Author(s):  
Philip S. Dale ◽  
Thomas S. Price ◽  
Dorothy V. M. Bishop ◽  
Robert Plomin
Keyword(s):  
Parental Education ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Early Language ◽  
Language Difficulties ◽  
History Of ◽  
Ear Infections ◽  
Nonverbal Ability ◽  
Early Language Delay ◽  
Twin Children ◽  
Language Measures

Parent-based assessments of vocabulary, grammar, nonverbal ability, and use of language to refer to past and future (displaced reference) were obtained for 8,386 twin children at 2 years of age. Children with 2 year vocabulary scores below the 10th centile were designated the early language delay (ELD) group, and their outcomes at 3 and 4 years were contrasted with the remainder of the sample, the typical language (TL) group. At 3 and 4 years old, children were designated as language impaired if their scores fell below the 15th centile on at least 2 of the 3 parent-provided language measures: vocabulary, grammar, and use of abstract language. At 3 years, 44.1% of the ELD group (as compared to 7.2% of the TL group) met criteria for persistent language difficulties, decreasing slightly to 40.2% at 4 years (as compared to 8.5% of the TL group), consistent with previous reports of frequent spontaneous resolution of delayed language in preschoolers. Although relations between language and nonverbal abilities at 2 years and outcome at 3 and 4 years within the ELD group were highly statistically significant, effect sizes were small, and classification of outcome on the basis of data on 2-year-olds was far too inaccurate to be clinically useful. Children whose language difficulties persisted were not necessarily those with the most severe initial difficulties. Furthermore, measures of parental education and the child's history of ear infections failed to substantially improve the prediction.

scholarly journals TM4SF20 Ancestral Deletion and Susceptibility to a Pediatric Disorder of Early Language Delay and Cerebral White Matter Hyperintensities

2013 ◽  
Vol 93 (2) ◽  
pp. 405
Author(s):  
Wojciech Wiszniewski ◽  
Jill V. Hunter ◽  
Neil A. Hanchard ◽  
Jason R. Willer ◽  
Chad Shaw ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
White Matter ◽  
White Matter Hyperintensities ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Cerebral White Matter ◽  
Early Language ◽  
Early Language Delay

scholarly journals Narrowing Care Gaps for Early Language Delay

2015 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 137-144 ◽  
Author(s):  
Courtney M. Brown ◽  
Andrew F. Beck ◽  
Wendy Steuerwald ◽  
Elizabeth Alexander ◽  
Zeina M. Samaan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Language Delay ◽  
Early Language ◽  
Care Gaps ◽  
Early Language Delay

scholarly journals The gesture–language association over time in toddlers with and without language delays

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 239694151984554 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stacy S Manwaring ◽  
Lauren Swineford ◽  
Danielle L Mead ◽  
Chih-Ching Yeh ◽  
Yue Zhang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Language Delays ◽  
Typical Development ◽  
Developmental Profile ◽  
Early Language ◽  
Child Interaction ◽  
Early Language Delay

Background and aims Young children with language delays or other factors that heighten risk for autism spectrum disorder often show reduced gesture use. In particular, deictic gestures such as pointing and showing are reported to be deficient in young children with autism spectrum disorder, and their use has been found to predict expressive vocabulary development. The first aim of this study was to examine the production of two types of gestures (deictic and conventional) for two communicative functions (behavior regulation and joint attention) across two observational contexts in a sample of 18-month-old toddlers with significant language delays compared to typical controls. The second aim was to examine if and how gesture use (type and communicative function) at 18 months is associated with later receptive and expressive language. Methods Toddlers with significant language delays ( n = 30) or typical development ( n = 62) were drawn from longitudinal studies of early language delay as a risk factor for autism spectrum disorder. Toddlers identified with early language delay were classified based on a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder ( n = 12) or non-autism spectrum disorder ( n = 18) after an evaluation at 36 months. Gestures were coded from video recordings of the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile–Behavior Sample and a naturalistic parent–child interaction obtained at 18 months. Language outcomes included receptive and expressive age equivalents from the Mullen Scales of Early Learning and the number of words produced on the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventories. Results At 18 months, toddlers with language delay showed reduced deictic and conventional gesture use in both the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile–Behavior Sample and parent–child interaction compared to toddlers with typical development. Within the language delay group, toddlers with an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis at outcome also produced significantly fewer deictic gestures than those without an autism spectrum disorder diagnosis across both communicative functions and observational contexts. While all groups of toddlers gestured more in the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile–Behavior Sample, the mean difference in gesture use between the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile–Behavior Sample and parent–child interaction was significantly larger in toddlers with typical development than language delay for deictic gestures, as compared to the difference between the two contexts for conventional gestures. In the combined sample, a significant association was found between deictic gestures used in the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile–Behavior Sample and change in the number of words produced from 18 to 36 months, accounting for significant demographic and developmental confounders. Conclusions Findings show that early language delay is associated with reduced deictic and conventional gestures across observational contexts. Importantly, deictic gesture use, but not conventional, was associated with the development of expressive language in toddlers with and without language delays. Implications Deictic gestures play an important role in the development of expressive language in toddlers, including those with language delays. Assessment of young children with language delays should include evaluation of types of gestures used and communicative function of gestures, with assessments utilizing communicative temptations yielding higher rates of gesture production. Directly targeting both gesture type and function in early intervention may be important in facilitating the development of language.

scholarly journals Children With Persistent Versus Transient Early Language Delay: Language, Academic, and Psychosocial Outcomes in Elementary School

2020 ◽  
Vol 63 (11) ◽  
pp. 3760-3774
Author(s):  
Alexandra Matte-Landry ◽  
Michel Boivin ◽  
Laurence Tanguay-Garneau ◽  
Catherine Mimeau ◽  
Mara Brendgen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Elementary School ◽  
Psychosocial Adjustment ◽  
Externalizing Behaviors ◽  
Psychosocial Outcomes ◽  
Population Based ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Early Language ◽  
Academic Difficulties ◽  
Early Language Delay ◽  
Peer Difficulties

Purpose The objective of this study was to compare children with persistent versus transient preschool language delay on language, academic, and psychosocial outcomes in elementary school. Method Children with persistent language delay ( n = 30), transient language delay ( n = 29), and no language delay (controls; n = 163) were identified from a population-based sample of twins. They were compared on language skills, academic achievement, and psychosocial adjustment in kindergarten and Grades 1, 3, 4, and 6. Results Children with persistent language delay continued to show language difficulties throughout elementary school. Furthermore, they had academic difficulties, in numeracy, and psychosocial difficulties (attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder behaviors, externalizing behaviors, peer difficulties) from Grade 1 to Grade 6. Children with transient language delay did not differ from controls on language and academic performance. However, they showed more externalizing behaviors in kindergarten and peer difficulties in Grade 1 than controls. Conclusion Difficulties at school age are widespread and enduring in those with persistent early language delay but appear specific to psychosocial adjustment in those with transient language delay.

Assessment of Language in Young Children

2019 ◽  
pp. 314-333
Author(s):  
Leslie A. Rescorla
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Screening Tool ◽  
Language Assessment ◽  
Good Clinical Practice ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Late Talkers ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Efficient Screening

Language delay is one of the major reasons that young children are referred for developmental or psychological evaluation. When no more primary condition is present, a child with a language delay is diagnosed with specific language impairment, with children ages 2 to 3 usually called late talkers. A vocabulary checklist such as the Language Development Survey (Rescorla, 1989) is an efficient screening tool for identifying language delay in toddlers. Research findings in five major domains of language and communication (gestures/play, phonology/vocalizations, vocabulary, grammar, and pragmatics) are reviewed, as well as standardized and naturalistic methods for assessing development in each domain. It is good clinical practice to screen for psychopathology when conducting a language assessment of young children, even though many preschoolers with language delay do not have significant psychopathology. Findings on associations between language delay and behavioral/emotional problems are reviewed, as well as commonly used rating forms for identifying maladjustment.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document