China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Children’s communication: development and difficulties
Published in James Law, Alison Parkinson, Rashmin Tamhne, David Hall, Communication Difficulties in Childhood, 2017
Classification is important because it reflects current knowledge regarding disorder and because it allows clinicians and service providers to separate out groups that need different approaches to intervention. There have been a number of attempts to classify speech and language delays but to date no one system has received universal recognition. In part this is because of the wide range of disciplines involved in working with these children, orienting to them in different ways. For many the term speech and language impairment would be considered the overarching term and under it would be the distinction between speech and/or language delay and speech and/or language disorder. The distinction between delay and disorder can be somewhat confusing because the associated assumption is that delays are more benign than disorders, the former resolving spontaneously while the latter have more persistent and negative consequences for schooling, etc. In fact, while there is undoubtedly a group of children whose difficulties resolve spontaneously in the preschool years, there are many children who experience delays across a range of linguistic domains and continue to have difficulties well into the school years. Similarly children with disorders in specific linguistic domains – notably phonological disorders – may have a relatively good outcome. Nevertheless there are two groupings which are widely recognised, the distinction between primary and secondary language impairments and the broad brush classification system represented by the DSM-IV (seeBox 1.4).18
Topic 4 Child Psychiatry
Published in Melvyn W.B. Zhang, Cyrus S.H. Ho, Roger C.M. Ho, Basant K. Puri, Get Through, 2016
Melvyn W.B. Zhang, Cyrus S.H. Ho, Roger C.M. Ho, Basant K. Puri
Commonly associated medical conditions Speech or language impairment is present in 50% of children with ADHD.Oppositional defiant disorder (40% of children would meet the diagnostic criteria, but at least 75% of children with ADHD show behavioural symptoms of aggression).Conduct disorder is present in approximately 30%–50% of children.Anxiety disorders are present in 25% of children.Tic disorder is present in 11% of children.The other common associated condition is substance abuse.
The Problems
Published in John Greene, Ian Bone, Understanding Neurology a problem-orientated approach, 2007
While the above classification helps to localize where the problems causing language and speech disorder are, the rate of evolution of the symptoms helps to determine the nature of the pathologic process (Table 14). For example, sudden onset of speech or language impairment is often due to stroke, which is the commonest cause of speech and language impairment. Twenty to 30% of all strokes have some degree of language or speech impairment, and this can be the only symptom, with no evidence of hemiparesis or other neurological impairment. By contrast, insidious onset and progressive impairment are suspicious of tumour or neurodegenerative disease.
How we measure language skills of children at scale: A call to move beyond domain-specific tests as a proxy for language
Published in International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 2023
Samuel D. Calder, Christopher G. Brennan-Jones, Monique Robinson, Andrew Whitehouse, Elizabeth Hill
Of interest, other Australian longitudinal studies that have evaluated developmental language outcomes have used a vocabulary comprehension measure as a proxy for overall language ability. For example, the language abilities of children have been evaluated using data from the Longitudinal Study of Australian Children (LSAC; Harrison & McLeod, 2010; McLeod & Harrison, 2009; Zubrick et al., 2015). McLeod and Harrison (2009) assessed the prevalence of speech and language impairment in children aged 4–5 years (n = 4983). The study drew upon various metrics to determine the proportion of children with speech and language impairment, including the Adapted Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-3 (PPVT-3; Rothman, 2003). Findings indicated that 13.0% of children were 1–2 standard deviations below the mean and 1.7% were 2.0 standard deviations below the mean on the PPVT-3. In comparison, 9.5% had parents that were concerned about how their child understood language, and 16.9% were considered less competent than their peers in receptive language ability as judged by teachers. The implication being multiple indicators of language impairment across a range of contexts indicated high prevalence in early childhood.
Preliminary evidence supports a range of speech sound interventions, but higher-quality studies are needed1
Published in Evidence-Based Communication Assessment and Intervention, 2019
Katherine Sanchez, Amanda Brignell, Angela T. Morgan
Study selection and assessment: Inclusion criteria for studies were that they must: (a) include a study sample comprising at least 80% children aged 2;0–5;11, (b) include children diagnosed with or at risk of speech and language impairment without co-occurring impairments, (c) be an empirical evaluation of an intervention, (d) use at least one primary outcome measure that addressed speech. There were no inclusion or exclusion criteria imposed with regards to study design. Of the studies that met inclusion criteria, only those that could be mapped to the “speech” theme of the Child Talk typology category and focused on speech sound disorders were appraised for quality. This was a separate stage and not specified in the original inclusion criteria. For included studies, quality appraisals were conducted by trained researchers using the Physiotherapy Evidence Database quality assessment tool (PEDro-P; for randomized and non-randomized controlled trials; score range 0–9) and the Single-Case Experimental Design (SCED; for single case studies; score range 0–10.) Only those studies scoring ≥6 were included in the review. It was not specified how the cut off of ≥6 was determined for the SCED tool. The data extraction or quality appraisals did not appear to be completed by two authors independently, as per Cochrane Collaboration guidelines.
Intervention focus moderates the association between initial receptive language and language outcomes for toddlers with developmental delay
Published in Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 2019
R. Michael Barker, MaryAnn Romski, Rose A. Sevcik, Lauren B. Adamson, Ashlyn L. Smith, Roger Bakeman
Data from the 62 toddlers who completed the intervention study by Romski et al. (2010) were analyzed in this paper. Original participant selection criteria were (a) children between 24 and 36 months of age with a significant developmental delay, a significant risk for speech and language impairment, which was operationally defined as not having begun to talk, as indicated by a vocabulary of at most 10 intelligible spoken words and a score of less than 12 months on the expressive language scale of the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL; Mullen, 1995); (b) at least primitive intentional communication abilities (i.e., they could physically manipulate the environment to get what they want; per observation during the MSEL); (c) upper extremity gross motor skills that permitted the child to touch the symbols on the SGD (per observation during the MSEL); (d) a primary disability other than delayed speech and language impairment, deafness/hearing impairment, or autism spectrum disorder (per parent report); and (e) English as the primary language spoken at home (per parent report). Receptive language prior to intervention was not a selection criterion. Parents received information about the study from a recruitment source and individually contacted the project to participate. Parents provided informed consent for their child to participate after meeting with the project SLP and principal investigator, who explained the study. All aspects of this study were approved by the IRB at Georgia State University.