To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure email@example.com
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
A longitudinal comparison was made between development of verbal and visuo-spatial short-term memory and vocabulary in children with Down syndrome (DS), children with specific language impairment (SLI), and typically developing children as a control group. Participants were 12 children with DS (6 males, 6 females; mean chronological age 9y 9mo [SD 2.8mo], range 8y 6mo to 11y 4mo); nine children with SLI (4 males, 5 females; mean chronological age 3y 9mo [SD 4.8mo], range 3y 3mo to 4y 5mo); and 12 typically developing children (5 males, 7 females; mean chronological age 4y 4mo [SD 3.9mo], range 3y 3mo to 4y 3mo). Participants were matched on mental age (mean mental age 4y 3mo). All participants completed verbal short-term memory, visuo-spatial short-term memory, and expressive and receptive vocabulary tasks on three occasions over 1 year. Similarities were seen in the clinical groups for verbal short-term memory. There was some evidence of difficulty in visuo-spatial short-term memory in the children with SLI relative to the other groups, but all three groups showed overlap in visuo-spatial short-term memory performance. At the final time-point vocabulary performance in the clinical groups was similar; the typically developing children showed higher vocabulary abilities than both clinical groups.
Three groups of children with communication disorders were examined using a series of psycholinguistic markers to explore whether the tasks could identify children with impairments other than specific language impairment (SLI), and to examine whether the different groups within this clinical population could be distinguished reliably from one another. The groups comprised children with autistic spectrum disorders (ASD; n=13, all males; mean age 10 years 10 months, range 10 years 2 months to 12 years 6 months); children with primary pragmatic language impairment (PLI) but who did not have definite ASD diagnoses (n=25, 22 males, three females; mean age 11 years 3 months, range 10 years 2 months to 12 years 5 months); and children with specific language impairment (SLI) without marked pragmatic language difficulties (n=29, 25 males, 4 females; mean age 10 years 10 months, range 10 years 2 months to 11 years 9 months). Clinical markers examined were: the Children's Non-Word Repetition (CNRep), the Past Tense Task (PTT), and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Recalling Sentences. First, it was found that the a priori groupings were not sufficiently defined and that four groups were actually present. The PLI group was in fact two separate samples: those with PLI pure and those with some autistic-like behaviours (referred to here as PLI plus, following Bishop 1998). Second, group comparisons indicated that CNRep was significantly lower for children with SLI than all other groups (although this measure was not such a good discriminator using a specificity analysis). Third, the markers were able to discriminate between all types of communication impairment in normal control participants (n=100; 51 females, 49 males; mean age 11 years, range 10 years 5 months to 11 years 6 months) with sensitivity levels of at least 75% and specificity of 80%. Recalling Sentences was the most efficient marker for all groups. Finally, analysis showed that children with PLI plus could be accurately distinguished from all others, scoring most favourably overall on communication markers and on performance IQ scores.
A group of 117 children who met criteria for Specific Language Impairment (SLI) at 7 years of age were reassessed at 11 years of age. The data gathered from both stages were used to identify predictors of good and poor outcome from earlier test assessments. Results of logistic regressions indicated that measures of narrative retelling skills and expressive syntax were the strongest predictors of overall prognosis. This finding persisted when a nonverbal measure was included as a predictor alongside language measures in the regression model. There was found to be a lack of independent predictive contribution of early measures of articulation to later overall prognosis. Demographic factors (maternal education and family income) were not differently distributed across outcome groups. The theoretical and practical implications of the findings are discussed.
In this study 160 children, aged 11 years with a definite history of specific language impairment (SLI), completed four tasks that could be potential positive psycholinguistic markers for this impairment: a third person singular task, a past tense task, a nonword repetition task, and a sentence repetition task. This allowed examination of more than one type of marker simultaneously, facilitating both comparisons between markers and also evaluation of combinations of markers in relation to identifying SLI. The study also provided data regarding the markers in relation to nonverbal IQ, made use of new normative data on all tasks, and examined marker accuracy in relation to current language status. The results show that markers vary in accuracy, with sentence repetition (a previously unused marker) proving to be the most useful. This psycholinguistic marker shows high levels of sensitivity (90%), specificity (85%), and overall accuracy (88%), as well as being able to identify the majority of children whose current language status falls in the normal range despite a history of SLI.
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.