Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-6c8bd87754-sbrr8 Total loading time: 0.238 Render date: 2022-01-17T01:16:34.150Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Examination of the stability of two methods of defining specific language impairment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Kevin N. Cole*
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Ilene S. Schwartz
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Angela R. Notari
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Philip S. Dale
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Paulette E. Mills
Affiliation:
University of Washington
*
Kevin N. Cole, Experimental Education Unit WJ-10, University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195

Abstract

Two commonly applied methods of differentially classifying language-delayed children as either specifically language impaired or developmental lag language impaired (i.e., children with low IQ and low language performance) were examined for stability over 1-and 2-year periods. One classification method, following the DSM III.R guidelines, was based on an absolute cut-off level for performance on a measure of cognitive ability, in conjunction with other exclusionary criteria (i.e., language delay that is not the result of hearing loss, social– emotional disorder, etc.). The second classification method included the same absolute cut-off for cognitive ability as the DSM III-R guidelines, but it also required that a minimum relative difference be present between the general cognitive performance and the language performance. These two methods were examined for differences in classification of children, as well as for stability of classification across time. We used the McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities Perceptual-Performance Index as the cognitive measure and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised and the Test of Early Language Development as language performance measures. Results indicated significant differences in classification between the two methods of defining SLI, as well as substantial changes in classification over time using either method. Alternative classification systems are discussed.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1995

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

American Psychiatric Association. (1987). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (DSM Ill-RI3rd ed., rev.). Washington, DC: Author.Google Scholar
Aram, D. (1991). Comments on specific language impairment as a clinical category. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 22, 8487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Aram, D., Morris, R., & Hall, N. (1993). Clinical and research congruence in identifying children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 580591.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Benton, A. (1964). Developmental aphasia and brain damage. Cortex. 1, 4052.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bishop, D., & Adams, C. (1992). Comprehension problems in children with specific language impairment: Literal and inferential meaning. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 119129.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brown, L., Sherbenou, R., & Johnsen, S. (1990). Test of Nonverbal Intelligence (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Burgemeister, B. B., Blum, L. H., & Lorge, I. (1972). Columbia Mental Maturity Scale (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Casby, M. (1992). The cognitive hypothesis and its influence on speech-language services in the schools. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 23, 198202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, K., Dale, P., & Mills, P. (1990). Defining language delay in young children by Cognitive Referencing: Are we saying more than we know? Applied Psycholinguistics, 11, 291302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cole, K., Dale, P., & Mills, P. (1992). Stability of the intelligence quotient-language quotient relation: Is discrepancy modeling based on a myth? American Journal of Mental Retardation, 97 (2), 131143.Google ScholarPubMed
Connell, P. (1987). An effect of modeling and imitation teaching procedures on children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 105113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Craig, H., & Evans, J. (1989). Turn exchange characteristics of SLI children's simultaneous and nonsisnultaneous speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 334347.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cromer, R. (1988). The cognitive hypothesis revisited. In Kessell, F. (Ed.), The development of language and language researchers (pp. 223248). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Curtiss, S., Katz, W., & Tallal, P. (1992). Delay versus deviance in the language acquisition of language-impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 373383.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, P., & Henderson, V. (1987). An evaluation of the Test of Early Language Development as a measure of receptive and expressive language. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in the Schools, 18, 179187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Evans, J., & Craig, H. (1992). Language sample collection and analysis: Interview compared to freeplay assessment contexts. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 343353.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fowler, A. (1990). Language abilities in children with Down syndrome: Evidence for a specific syntactic delay. In Cicchetti, D. & Beeghly, M. (Eds.), Children with Down syndrome: A developmental perspective (pp. 302327). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Benowitz, S., & Barringer, K. (1987). Norm-referenced tests: Are they valid for use with handicapped students? Exceptional Children, 54, 263271.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hargrove, P., & Sheran, C. (1989). The use of stress by language impaired children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 22, 361373.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hiskey, M. (1966). Hiskey-Nebraska Test of Learning Aptitude. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.Google Scholar
Hresko, W., Reid, D., & Hammill, D. (1981). Test of Early Language Development. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Johnston, J. (1991). The continuing relevance of cause: A reply to Leonard's “Specific Language Impairment as a clinical category.” Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in the Schools, 22, 7579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kamhi, A. (1992). Response to Historical Perspective: A developmental language perspective. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 25, 4852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1983). K-ABC: Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Lahey, M. (1988). Language disorders and language development. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Lahey, M. (1990). Who shall be called language disordered? Some reflections and one perspective. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 612620.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leiter, R. G. (1948). Leiter International Performance Scale. Chicago: Stoelting.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. (1986). Conversational replies of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 29, 114119.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leonard, L. (1987). Is specific language impairment a useful construct? In Rosenberg, S. (Ed.), Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics: Vol. 1. Disorders of first-language development (pp. 139). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. (1989). Language learnability and specific language impairment in children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10, 179202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Loeb, D., & Leonard, L. (1991). Subject case marking and verb morphology in normally developing and specifically language-impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 340346.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyngaas, K., Nyberg, B., Hoekenga, R., & Gruenewald, L. (1983). Language intervention in the multiple contexts of the public school setting. In Miller, J., Yoder, D., & Schiefelbusch, R. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in language intervention (Report No. 12, pp. 239252). Rockville, MD: ASHA.Google Scholar
McCall, R., Appelbaum, M., & Hogarty, P. (1973). Developmental changes in mental performance. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 38 (Whole No. 150).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCarthy, D. (1972). McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
McCauley, R. (1989). Measurement as a dangerous activity. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 13, 2932.Google Scholar
McCauley, R., & Demetras, M. (1990). The identification of language impairment in the selection of specifically language-impaired subjects. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 55, 468475.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCauley, R., & Swisher, L. (1984). Use and misuse of norm-referenced tests in clinical assessment: A hypothetical case. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 338348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Notari, A., Cole, K., & Mills, P. (1992). Cognitive referencing: The (non)relationship between theory and application. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 11, 2238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Olswang, L., & Bain, B. (1991). When to recommend intervention. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 22(4), 255263.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paul, R., Fischer, M., & Cohen, D. (1988). Sentence comprehension strategies in children with autism and specific language disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18, 669679.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J. (1981). Assessment in special and remedial education. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
Sattler, J. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego, CA: Author.Google Scholar
Schwartz, E. (1974). Characteristics of speech and language development in the child with myelomingocele and hydrocephalus. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 39, 465468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stark, R., & Tallal, P. (1981). Selection of children with specific language deficits. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 114122.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tallal, P. (1988). Developmental language disorders. In Cavanagh, J. & Truss, T. (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Proceedings of the national conference (pp. 181272). Parkton, MD: York Press.Google Scholar
Thal, D., Bates, E., & Bellugi, U. (1989). Language and cognition in two children with Williams syndrome. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 32, 489500.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wechsler, D. (1974). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
21
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org 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 sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent 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.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Examination of the stability of two methods of defining specific language impairment
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Examination of the stability of two methods of defining specific language impairment
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and 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 <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Examination of the stability of two methods of defining specific language impairment
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *