Classification of Developmental Language Disorders

2003 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Language Disorders ◽  
Developmental Language Disorders

Classification of Adults for Family Studies of Developmental Language Disorders

1996 ◽  
Vol 39 (3) ◽  
pp. 661-667 ◽  
Author(s):  
Elena Plante ◽  
Kenneth Shenkman ◽  
Melinda M. Clark
Keyword(s):  
Standardized Testing ◽  
Case History ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Research Literature ◽  
Classification Methods ◽  
Developmental Language Disorders ◽  
Control Subjects ◽  
The Status ◽  
Unrelated Adult

A variety of approaches has been used to classify the status of adult subjects in familial studies of developmental language disorders. In this report, we directly compare the results of four different methods that appear in the research literature. Two of the approaches rely on case history reports, and two are performance-based methods. Subjects included 24 parents (12 mothers, 12 fathers) of children with developmental language disorders and 24 unrelated adult control subjects (12 female, 12 male) who completed case history items and standardized language testing designed for classification purposes. All classification methods identified more parents than control subjects as “affected.” However, classification by case history methods resulted in fewer affected adults than classification through standardized testing. This outcome suggests that the variability in classification rates in studies to date may be the result of method rather than subject sample differences.

scholarly journals Measuring Dysgraphia: A Graded-Difficulty Spelling Test

1994 ◽  
Vol 7 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 107-116 ◽  
Author(s):  
D. M. Baxter ◽  
E. K. Warrington
Keyword(s):  
Left Hemisphere ◽  
Right Hemisphere ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Lower Quartile ◽  
Verbal Skills ◽  
Spelling Test ◽  
Spelling Disorder ◽  
Highly Correlated ◽  
Orthopaedic Injuries

In this paper we describe the construction of a graded-difficulty spelling test for adults consisting of two alternative forms each containing 30 words (GDST, Forms A and B). The spelling test, together with background tests of verbal and non-verbal skills, was administered to 100 control patients with orthopaedic injuries. The two forms of the spelling test were highly correlated (0.92). Spelling was highly correlated with reading (0.75, 0.77) and moderately correlated with vocabulary (0.57) and naming (0.39, 0.40). There was no correlation between spelling skills and non-verbal reasoning. The test was validated in a group of 26 patients with left hemisphere and 20 patients with right hemisphere lesions. Spelling was shown to be lateralized to the left hemisphere and there appeared to be a shift in scores of the left hemisphere group towards the lower quartile, with 65% of the left hemisphere group falling within this band. The most severe spelling impairments were invariably associated with other language disorders but a number of dissociations were documented at spelling levels falling between the 5th and 25th percentile band. Two patients with left hemisphere lesions (8%) were identified as having selective dysgraphias. The lack of overlap between the anatomical sites of the two patients with specific lexical dysgraphia argues against a single site for this type of dysgraphia and argues for further refinement of this classification of spelling disorder.

Designing measures for profiling and genotype/phenotype studies of individuals with genetic syndromes or developmental language disorders

2005 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 41-64 ◽  
Author(s):  
CAROLYN B. MERVIS ◽  
BYRON F. ROBINSON
Keyword(s):  
Language Disorders ◽  
Target Population ◽  
Cognitive Profiles ◽  
Genetic Syndromes ◽  
Developmental Language Disorders ◽  
Measurement Issues ◽  
Special Measurement ◽  
Ideal Measure ◽  
Infants And Young Children ◽  
The Ideal

Accurate phenotypic description is critical for the success of studies of the genetic basis for developmental language disorders. An important purpose of such a phenotypic description is to differentiate the language and associated cognitive profiles of syndromes or other developmental language disorders with diverse genotypes. In this paper we consider six measurement issues relevant to genotype/phenotype research and profiling: (a) Who is the target population? (b) What is the “ideal” measure of a single component of language? (c) What is the “ideal” measure(s) for quantifying the language (or language and cognitive) profile for a particular syndrome or disorder? (d) What are the special measurement issues for infants and young children? (e) How do we develop a profile? (f) What are the unresolved issues?

Patterns of Language Behavior in Children with Developmental Language Disorders

1975 ◽  
Vol 18 (2) ◽  
pp. 229-241 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dorothy M. Aram ◽  
James E. Nation
Keyword(s):  
Factor Analysis ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Older Children ◽  
Language Performance ◽  
Developmental Language Disorders ◽  
Factor I ◽  
Factor Ii ◽  
Language Behavior ◽  
Low Performance ◽  
Comprehension Deficit

Tests to measure comprehension, formulation, and repetition of certain phonologic, syntactic, and semantic aspects of language were administered to 47 children who had developmental language disorders. A factor analysis of the resultant scores indicated that three factors were present in the data. These factors are presented as six patterns of language performance, one for high loadings on the factor and one for low loadings. The six patterns are (1) repetition strength (Factor I, high); (2) nonspecific formulation-repetition deficit (Factor I, low); (3) generalized low performance (Factor II, high); (4) phonologic comprehension-formulation-repetition deficit (Factor II, low); (5) comprehension deficit (Factor III, high); and (6) formulation-repetition deficit (Factor III, low). Possible relations among these patterns and nonlinguistic measures (sex, race, age, nonverbal intelligence, socioeconomic status, and status of the peripheral speech mechanism) were investigated. Two of the patterns of language performance were found to be related significantly to age. On Factor II, the younger children tended to get high loadings (generalized low performance) while the older children tended to get low loadings (phonologic comprehension-formulation-repetition deficit).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document