scholarly journals Data curation for a VALID Archive of Dutch Language Impairment Data

2014 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 127-136 ◽  
Author(s):  
Henk van den Heuvel ◽  
Eric Sanders ◽  
Jetske Klatter-Folmer ◽  
Roeland van Hout ◽  
Paula Fikkert ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Pilot Project ◽  
Multimedia Data ◽  
Data Sets ◽  
Data Archive ◽  
Communication Problems ◽  
Valid Data ◽  
Language Data ◽  
Language Pathology

The VALID Data Archive is an open multimedia data archive in which data from children and adults with language and/or communication problems are brought together. A pilot project, funded by CLARIN-NL, was carried out in which five existing data sets were curated. This pilot enabled us to build up experience in conserving different kinds of pathological language data in a searchable and persistent manner. These data sets reflect current research in language pathology rather well, both in the range of designs and the variety in pathological problems, such as Specific Language Impairment, deafness, dyslexia, and ADHD. In this paper, we present the VALID initiative, explain the curation process and discuss the materials of the data sets.

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.

The Use of Spontaneous Language Measures as Criteria for Identifying Children With Specific Language Impairment: An Attempt to Reconcile Clinical and Research Incongruence

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 643-654 ◽  
Author(s):  
Michelle Dunn ◽  
Judith Flax ◽  
Martin Sliwinski ◽  
Dorothy Aram
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Clinical Judgment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Normal Children ◽  
Spontaneous Language ◽  
Optimal Subset ◽  
Language Data ◽  
Language Measures ◽  
Mean Length Of Utterance

Criteria for identification of children as specifically language impaired (SLI) vary greatly among clinicians and researchers. Standardized psychometric discrepancy criteria are more restrictive and perhaps less sensitive to language impairment than is clinical judgment based on a child’s language performance in naturalistic contexts. This paper examines (a) differences in groups of preschool children clinically diagnosed as SLI who were and were not identified as SLI through standard psychometric discrepancy criteria, and (b) the validity of quantitative measures of mean length of utterance (MLU), syntax, and pragmatics derived from a spontaneous language sample as criteria for discriminating clinically diagnosed preschoolers from normally developing preschoolers. Spontaneous language data indicated that children clinically identified as SLI produced a significantly higher percentage of errors in spontaneous speech than normal children whether they met psychometric discrepancy criteria or not. Logistic regression analysis indicated that a combination of MLU, percent structural errors, and chronological age was the optimal subset of variables useful for predicting a clinical diagnosis of SLI. This combined criterion captured a larger proportion of the clinically identified SLI children than even the best psychometric discrepancy criteria.

Blending Quantitative and Qualitative Methods in Language Research and Intervention

2003 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-171 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bonnie Brinton ◽  
Martin Fujiki
Keyword(s):  
Research Methods ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Quantitative Methods ◽  
Clinical Intervention ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative ◽  
Qualitative And Quantitative Methods ◽  
Language Research ◽  
Language Pathology

Best practice in speech-language pathology should be informed by current research findings. Traditional research methods are not always geared to address some of the complex, individual questions that arise in clinical intervention, however. Qualitative research methods may provide useful tools for bridging the gap from research to practice. Combinations of qualitative and quantitative procedures may be particularly helpful in sorting out some of the important issues surrounding language intervention in both clinical and research contexts. Examples of research blending qualitative and quantitative methods, as well as the case study of Sid, an 11-year-old boy with specific language impairment, are presented to illustrate how a combination of procedures can be used to enhance language research and intervention.

scholarly journals Lexical and morphosyntactic minimal pairs: Evidence for different processing and implications in language pathology treatment

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Cilibrasi ◽  
Vesna Stojanovik ◽  
Patricia M Riddell
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Minimal Pair ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Phonological Disorders ◽  
Minimal Pairs ◽  
Peculiar Form ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Third Person ◽  
Native Speakers Of English

Minimal pairs are defined as pair of words in a particular language which differ in only one phonological element and have a different meaning (Roach, 2000). Several authors argued their relevance in the treatment of phonological disorders (for instance, Barlow and Gierut, 2002). In this study we investigate the nature of minimal pairs showing that a subtype of them entails a peculiar form of processing. In many languages bound morphemes used to mark inflection generate minimal pairs. In English, the present third person singular morpheme -s and the past tense morpheme -ed generate in most cases minimal pairs, such as “asks / asked”. Several authors (Stemberger and MacWhinney, 1986, Bertram et al, 2000) have argued that inflected forms may be stored in the lexicon as units, i.e. together with the bound morpheme. If inflected forms are stored as units in the lexicon, discriminating lexical minimal pairs and morphosyntactic minimal pairs should not be different processes. Elements should be stored similarly in the lexicon, and then compared phonologically when the subject is presented with a minimal pair. In this study we addressed this question presenting 20 monolingual native speakers of English with lexical and morphosyntactic minimal pairs (30 per condition, frequency differences not significant), and with pairs of identical words (leading, thus, to 120 trials). Participants were asked to press “white” if words were different and “black” if words were identical. Conditions were matched on word length. Results show that subjects are significantly faster in discriminating words generating a lexical minimal pair, such as “back / badge” than words generating a morphosyntactic minimal pair, such as “asks / asked”, t (19) = -4.486, p < .001. A third condition was also present to deepen our understanding of the processing of morphosyntactic minimal pairs. In this condition subjects were presented with morphosyntactic minimal pairs generated by very infrequent verbs. Unexpectedly, minimal pairs generated by infrequent verbs revealed to be faster recognised (19) = 2.120, p < .05 than the other morphosyntactic minimal pairs. Even if this may be interpreted as a consequence of attention arousal for unexpected stimuli, the result is problematic if we assume inflected forms to be stored in the lexicon as units. Together, these results suggest that inflected forms are not stored as units and that the discrimination of morphosyntactic minimal pairs relies on the discrimination of inflectional morphemes. As such, we suggest that increasing the sensibility to morphosyntactic minimal pairs in people with a morphosyntactic disorder, such as children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI), should improve their language performance.

scholarly journals Trastorno Específico del Lenguaje: Marcadores psicolingüísticos en semántica y pragmática en niños españoles

2015 ◽  
Vol 31 (3) ◽  
pp. 879
Author(s):  
Juan J. Buiza ◽  
María J. Rodríguez-Parra ◽  
José A. Adrián
Keyword(s):  
Discriminant Analysis ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Group Performance ◽  
Speech Language Pathology ◽  
Canonical Function ◽  
Spanish Speaking ◽  
Task Definition ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Definition Of

<p>The aim of this study is to determine which semantics and pragmatics markers best discriminate Spanish-speaking children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) from children with typical language development. This study analyzes the performance of 31 Spanish-speaking children with SLI on a battery of 9 psycholinguistic tasks. The performance of the SLI children was compared with that of two subgroups of controls: aged-matched (CA) and linguistically matched (CL).</p><p>The data show that the SLI group performed more poorly than the CA subgroup on most of the tasks (8/9). However, the SLI group performance only was significantly worse that of the CL subgroup on one of the tasks. A first Discriminant Analysis SLI vs CA established canonical function with Sensitivity 93,5% and Specificity 87,1%. A second Discriminant Analysis  SLI vs CL identified a canonical function with Sensitivity 77,4%  and Specificity only 54,8%. One semantic task (Definition of words) and another pragmatic task (Scene language) appear to be the best variables for establishing an SLI profile in this psycholinguistics areas. Discuss the implications of these findings for the clinical diagnosis and speech-language pathology.</p>

scholarly journals Lexical and morphosyntactic minimal pairs: Evidence for different processing and implications in language pathology treatment

2014 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luca Cilibrasi ◽  
Vesna Stojanovik ◽  
Patricia M Riddell
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Minimal Pair ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Phonological Disorders ◽  
Minimal Pairs ◽  
Peculiar Form ◽  
Language Pathology ◽  
Third Person ◽  
Native Speakers Of English

Minimal pairs are defined as pair of words in a particular language which differ in only one phonological element and have a different meaning (Roach, 2000). Several authors argued their relevance in the treatment of phonological disorders (for instance, Barlow and Gierut, 2002). In this study we investigate the nature of minimal pairs showing that a subtype of them entails a peculiar form of processing. In many languages bound morphemes used to mark inflection generate minimal pairs. In English, the present third person singular morpheme -s and the past tense morpheme -ed generate in most cases minimal pairs, such as “asks / asked”. Several authors (Stemberger and MacWhinney, 1986, Bertram et al, 2000) have argued that inflected forms may be stored in the lexicon as units, i.e. together with the bound morpheme. If inflected forms are stored as units in the lexicon, discriminating lexical minimal pairs and morphosyntactic minimal pairs should not be different processes. Elements should be stored similarly in the lexicon, and then compared phonologically when the subject is presented with a minimal pair. In this study we addressed this question presenting 20 monolingual native speakers of English with lexical and morphosyntactic minimal pairs (30 per condition, frequency differences not significant), and with pairs of identical words (leading, thus, to 120 trials). Participants were asked to press “white” if words were different and “black” if words were identical. Conditions were matched on word length. Results show that subjects are significantly faster in discriminating words generating a lexical minimal pair, such as “back / badge” than words generating a morphosyntactic minimal pair, such as “asks / asked”, t (19) = -4.486, p < .001. A third condition was also present to deepen our understanding of the processing of morphosyntactic minimal pairs. In this condition subjects were presented with morphosyntactic minimal pairs generated by very infrequent verbs. Unexpectedly, minimal pairs generated by infrequent verbs revealed to be faster recognised (19) = 2.120, p < .05 than the other morphosyntactic minimal pairs. Even if this may be interpreted as a consequence of attention arousal for unexpected stimuli, the result is problematic if we assume inflected forms to be stored in the lexicon as units. Together, these results suggest that inflected forms are not stored as units and that the discrimination of morphosyntactic minimal pairs relies on the discrimination of inflectional morphemes. As such, we suggest that increasing the sensibility to morphosyntactic minimal pairs in people with a morphosyntactic disorder, such as children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI), should improve their language performance.

scholarly journals Children with Language Disorders or Late Bloomers – the problem of differential diagnosis

2016 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 258-264
Author(s):  
Ewa Czaplewska
Keyword(s):  
Differential Diagnosis ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Speech Development ◽  
Global Developmental Delay ◽  
Developmental Abnormalities ◽  
Communication Problems ◽  
Late Bloomers ◽  
Development Support ◽  
Speech Development Disorders

Abstract Communication problems are often the first noticeable symptom of developmental abnormalities. About 15% of children at the age of 2 years demonstrate a lower level of speech expression than their peers. Speech development disorders may constitute either symptoms of global developmental delay or only isolated difficulties. One of the main challenges for professionals dealing with early development support is recognizing whether a child whose linguistic competence differs significantly from that of their peers suffers from a specific language impairment, or whether they belong to the group of ‘late bloomers’ who at some point, without the intervention of a specialist, will achieve an appropriate level of communication skills. Although a differential diagnosis can be extremely difficult, the analysis of the literature leads to the conclusion that there are some markers that can aid a specialist in establishing an accurate diagnosis.

Eliciting Verbs From Children With Specific Language Impairment

1996 ◽  
Vol 5 (4) ◽  
pp. 17-30 ◽  
Author(s):  
Diane Frome Loeb ◽  
Clifton Pye ◽  
Sean Redmond ◽  
Lori Zobel Richardson
Keyword(s):  
Young Children ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Syntactic Complexity ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Lexical Skills

The focus of assessment and intervention is often aimed at increasing the lexical skills of young children with language impairment. Frequently, the use of nouns is the center of the lexical assessment. As a result, the production of verbs is not fully evaluated or integrated into treatment in a way that accounts for their semantic and syntactic complexity. This paper presents a probe for eliciting verbs from children, describes its effectiveness, and discusses the utility of and problems associated with developing such a probe.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document