Receptive Vocabulary, Expressive Vocabulary, and Speech Production of Boys With Fragile X Syndrome in Comparison to Boys With Down Syndrome

2007 ◽  
Vol 112 (3) ◽  
pp. 177 ◽  
Author(s):  
Joanne Roberts ◽  
Johanna Price ◽  
Elizabeth Barnes ◽  
Lauren Nelson ◽  
Margaret Burchinal ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Down Syndrome ◽  
Fragile X Syndrome ◽  
Speech Production ◽  
Fragile X ◽  
Receptive Vocabulary ◽  
Expressive Vocabulary

scholarly journals Effect of Sustained Maternal Responsivity on Later Vocabulary Development in Children With Fragile X Syndrome

2014 ◽  
Vol 57 (1) ◽  
pp. 212-226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nancy Brady ◽  
Steven F. Warren ◽  
Kandace Fleming ◽  
Juliana Keller ◽  
Audra Sterling
Keyword(s):  
Fragile X Syndrome ◽  
Middle Childhood ◽  
Fragile X ◽  
Vocabulary Development ◽  
Receptive Vocabulary ◽  
Significant Variable ◽  
Expressive Vocabulary ◽  
Autism Symptoms ◽  
Maternal Responsivity ◽  
Time Period

Purpose This research explored whether sustained maternal responsivity (a parent–child interaction style characterized by warmth, nurturance, and stability as well as specific behaviors, such as contingent positive responses to child initiations) was a significant variable predicting vocabulary development of children with fragile X syndrome through age 9 years. Method Fifty-five mother–child dyads were followed longitudinally when children were between 2 and 10 years of age. Measures of maternal responsivity and child vocabulary were obtained at regular intervals starting at age 2.9 years. Sustained responsivity was indicated by the average responsivity measured over Observations 2–5. Responsivity at the 1st time period, autism symptoms, and cognitive development were used as control variables. Results After controlling for development and autism symptoms, the authors found significant effects for sustained responsivity on receptive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary, and the rate of different words children produced through age 9. Conclusions Maternal responsivity, which is typically a variable of interest during early childhood, continues to be a significant variable, predicting vocabulary development through the middle childhood period. Thus, responsivity is a potential target for language interventions through this age period.

scholarly journals Discriminating Down Syndrome and Fragile X Syndrome based on language ability

2012 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 244-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
LIZBETH H. FINESTACK ◽  
AUDRA M. STERLING ◽  
LEONARD ABBEDUTO
Keyword(s):  
Down Syndrome ◽  
Fragile X Syndrome ◽  
Fragile X ◽  
Typical Development ◽  
Expressive Vocabulary ◽  
Standardized Measures ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Conversational Language ◽  
Language Profiles ◽  
Language Sample

ABSTRACTThis study compared the receptive and expressive language profiles of verbally expressive children and adolescents with Down Syndrome (DS) and those with Fragile X syndrome (FXS) and examined the extent to which these profiles reliably differentiate the diagnostic groups. A total of twenty-four verbal participants with DS (mean age: 12 years), twenty-two verbal participants with FXS (mean age: 12 years), and twenty-seven participants with typical development (TD; mean age = 4 years) completed standardized measures of receptive and expressive vocabulary and grammar, as well as a conversational language sample. Study results indicate that there are distinct DS and FXS language profiles, which are characterized by differences in grammatical ability. The diagnostic groups were not differentiated based on vocabulary performance. This study supports the existence of unique language profiles associated with DS and FXS.

Down Syndrome and Fragile X Syndrome in a Colombian Woman: Case Report

2016 ◽  
Vol 30 (5) ◽  
pp. 970-974 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wilmar Saldarriaga ◽  
Fabian Andres Ruiz ◽  
Flora Tassone ◽  
Randi Hagerman
Keyword(s):  
Down Syndrome ◽  
Case Report ◽  
Fragile X Syndrome ◽  
Fragile X

Validation of Hagerman’s behavioral phenotype for fragile X syndrome among men with intellectual disability

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jacques Bellavance ◽  
Morin Diane ◽  
Catherine Mello
Keyword(s):  
Down Syndrome ◽  
Intellectual Disability ◽  
Fragile X Syndrome ◽  
Design Methodology ◽  
Fragile X ◽  
Behavioral Phenotype ◽  
Care Providers ◽  
Content Type

Purpose The behavioral phenotype of fragile X syndrome (FXS) and intellectual disability (ID) proposed by Hagerman et al. (2009) was primarily based on data from male children and teens. The purpose of this study was to promote a better understanding of how this condition manifests in adults. Design/methodology/approach A total of 18 men of FXS were paired with men with Down syndrome on the basis of age and level of ID. A screening checklist was created on the basis of existing scales and the Hagerman et al. (2009) behavioral phenotype and completed by care providers. Findings Five of the 12 features of the phenotype were significantly more present among men with FXS than in men with Down syndrome. Originality/value This study provides partial confirmation for Hagerman et al.’s (2009) behavioral phenotype of FXS among men with moderate ID and identified some traits that warrant further investigation.

scholarly journals Vocabulary comprehension in adults with fragile X syndrome (FXS)

2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anne Hoffmann ◽  
Sue Ellen Krause ◽  
Joanne Wuu ◽  
Sue Leurgans ◽  
Stephen J. Guter ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Fragile X Syndrome ◽  
Cognitive Skills ◽  
Fragile X ◽  
Language Skills ◽  
Receptive Vocabulary ◽  
Fourth Edition ◽  
Mental Age ◽  
Autism Symptomatology ◽  
Global Language ◽  
Verbal Cognition

Abstract Background Receptive and expressive vocabulary in adult and adolescent males with fragile X syndrome (FXS) have been shown as significantly lower than their chronological age; however, receptive vocabulary has been considered a strength relative to mental age. This has not been formally examined, however, and data are needed to compare receptive vocabulary with other language skills and with mental age in individuals with FXS. This is especially important as vocabulary measures are sometimes used as a proxy to estimate language ability. Methods This preliminary study examined receptive vocabulary, global language, and cognitive skills in 42 adults (33 males and 9 females) with FXS as a portion of the baseline evaluation prior to randomization in a clinical trial of ampakine CX516. The battery of standardized tests addressed receptive vocabulary with the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test, Third Edition (PPVT-III), receptive and expressive language (termed henceforth as global language) via the Preschool Language Scale, Fourth Edition or the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Third Edition, and non-verbal cognition via the Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scales, Fourth Edition (SB-IV). Results Results showed (1) significantly higher receptive vocabulary than global language, (2) significantly better receptive vocabulary than non-verbal cognition, (3) equivalent non-verbal cognition and global language, and (4) severity of autism symptomatology was not correlated to receptive vocabulary or global language once non-verbal cognition was removed as factor. The scores from the PPVT-III did not represent the global language skills in our sample of adults with FXS. Conclusions Findings from this investigation strongly suggest that the PPVT-III should not be used as a screening tool for language levels or cognitive function in clinical studies since the scores from the PPVT-III were not representative of global language or non-verbal cognitive skills in adults with intellectual disabilities. This finding is critical in order to understand how to evaluate, as well as to treat, language in individuals with FXS. Development of efficient and appropriate tools to measure language, cognition, and behavior in individuals with FXS is essential.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document