scholarly journals Specific Language Impairment and Language Delay: an Analysis of Developmental Language Disorder Characteristics in a Group of Romanian Children

2020 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 40-55
Author(s):  
Ovidiu CRISTIAN TUDOREAN ◽  
Alois GHERGUT
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Delay ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Specific Language

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.

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.

Do Children Classified With Specific Language Impairment Have a Learning Disability in Writing? A Meta-Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 53 (4) ◽  
pp. 292-310
Author(s):  
Steve Graham ◽  
Michael Hebert ◽  
Evan Fishman ◽  
Amber B. Ray ◽  
Amy Gillespie Rouse
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Response Format ◽  
Typically Developing ◽  
Writing Quality ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
Moderator Analysis ◽  
Writing Scores

In this meta-analysis, we examined whether children classified with specific language impairment (SLI) experience difficulties with writing. We included studies comparing children with SLI to (a) typically developing peers matched on age ( k = 39 studies) and (b) typically developing younger peers with similar language capabilities ( k = six studies). Children classified with SLI scored lower on writing measures than their typically developing peers matched on age ( g = −0.97) when all writing scores in a study were included in the analysis. This same pattern occurred for specific measures of writing: quality ( g = −0.92), output ( g = −1.00), grammar ( g = −0.68), vocabulary ( g = −0.68), and spelling ( g = −1.17). A moderator analysis revealed that differences in the writing scores of children classified with SLI and typically developing peers matched on age were not as large, but were still statistically significant, when assessment involved a contrived response format (vs. measured based on students’ writing), researcher-created measures (vs. norm-referenced tests), or SLI included just children with a speech disorder (vs. children with a language disorder). Children classified with SLI further scored lower on writing than typically developing peers with similar language capabilities ( g = −0.47). We concluded that children with SLI experience difficulties with writing.

Developmental Language Disorder and the Assessment of Spoken Language

2021 ◽  
pp. 155-170
Author(s):  
Carol-Anne Murphy ◽  
Pauline Frizelle ◽  
Cristina McKean
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Skills ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Language Abilities ◽  
Language Sample Analysis ◽  
Language Sample

Developmental language disorder (DLD), previously known as specific language impairment (SLI), is a long-term developmental disorder affecting approximately 7.5% of children. Language abilities in children with DLD are variable and can be challenging to ascertain with confidence. This chapter aims to discuss some of the challenges associated with assessing the language skills of children with DLD through an overview of different forms of language assessment including standardized language testing, language sample analysis, and observations. Uses and limitations of the different forms of assessment are considered, bearing in mind the different functions of assessment and the need to gain a full understanding of children’s profiles of strength and weakness and communicative functioning in context. The authors conclude with requirements for best practice in assessment and promising avenues of development in this area.

Is specific language impairment a valid diagnostic category? Genetic and psycholinguistic evidence

1994 ◽  
Vol 346 (1315) ◽  
pp. 105-111 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Diagnostic Category ◽  
Verbal Ability ◽  
Specific Language ◽  
The Social ◽  
Apparent Reason ◽  
Underlying Disorder ◽  
Specific Disorders

Specific language impairment (SLI) is diagnosed when a child fails to develop language normally for no apparent reason: hearing and intelligence are adequate and the social environment is unexceptional. Definitions of SLI typically specify that the child must have a substantial discrepancy between language ability and non-verbal IQ. However, data from a twin study question the validity of this requirement, and indicate that SLI is not genetically distinct from less specific disorders where language impairment occurs in the context of low average or borderline non-verbal ability. A second question concerns the heterogeneous language symptoms seen in SLI: do these correspond to distinct conditions, or to different phenotypic manifestations of a common underlying disorder, or are they merely random variations resulting from unreliable assessments? The last of these possibilities is ruled out by the finding that twins who are concordant for language disorder show good agreement in terms of the pattern of language impairment. However, systematic variation in the age and ability of children in different SLI subgroups suggest that these may correspond to variable manifestations of a core inherited language disorder, rather than distinct diagnostic entities.

scholarly journals Spoken Word Learning in Children with Developmental Language Disorder or Dyslexia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Suzanne Adlof ◽  
Lauren Baron ◽  
Bethany A Bell ◽  
Joanna Scoggins
Keyword(s):  
Word Learning ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Retrieval Practice ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Learning Difficulties ◽  
Learning Task ◽  
Vocabulary Knowledge ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Learning Abilities

Purpose: Word learning difficulties have been documented in multiple studies involving children with dyslexia and developmental language disorder (DLD; see also specific language impairment (SLI)). However, no previous studies have directly contrasted word learning in these two frequently co-occurring disorders. We examined word learning in second grade students with DLD-only and dyslexia-only as compared to each other, peers with both disorders (DLD+dyslexia), and peers with typical development (TD). We hypothesized that children with dyslexia-only and DLD-only would show differences in word learning due to differences in phonological and semantic skills. Method: Children (N = 244) were taught eight novel pseudowords paired with unfamiliar objects. The teaching script included multiple exposures to the phonological form, the pictured object, a verbal semantic description of the object, and spaced retrieval practice opportunities. Word learning was assessed immediately after instruction with tasks requiring recall or recognition of the phonological and semantic information. Results: Children with dyslexia-only performed significantly better on existing vocabulary measures than their peers with DLD-only. On experimental word learning measures, children in the dyslexia-only and DLD+dyslexia groups showed significantly poorer performance than TD children on all word learning tasks. Children with DLD-only differed significantly from the TD group on a single word learning task assessing verbal semantic recall. Conclusions: Overall, results indicated that children with dyslexia display broad word learning difficulties extending beyond the phonological domain; however, this contrasted with their relatively strong performance on measures of existing vocabulary knowledge. More research is needed to understand relations between word learning abilities and overall vocabulary knowledge and how to close vocabulary gaps for children with both disorders.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document