An official website of the United States government
Purpose:Language sample analysis (LSA) is a commonly recommended method of assessment for bilingual children. This systematic review and meta-analysis provides a comprehensive overview of the literature on the use of LSA to differentiate between developmental language disorder (DLD) and typical language (TL) in bilingual children. Method:We conducted a search of several large electronic databases along with forward and backward searches and applied abstract and full-text screening procedures to identify all relevant studies. We then estimated standardized mean differences, representing the ability of LSA to differentiate between DLD and TL, using multilevel model and subgroup and moderator analyses to identify characteristics of LSA that may be associated with differences in effect size magnitude. We conducted assessments of publication bias and risk of bias by examining quality indicators for each study. Results:The search yielded 35 articles that met the inclusion criteria. Participants ranged in age from 2;0 (years;months) to 11;9, with over 40 languages represented. Across studies, the pooled standardized mean difference indicated that children with DLD performed 0.78SDlower on LSA measures than those with TL. Measures of morphosyntactic accuracy exhibited the largest pooled effect size. Elicitation method, language of task, and age were not associated with differences in effect size. Discussion:Results of this study provide evidence of the clinical utility of LSA in differentiating between DLD and TL in bilingual children. Further research is needed to examine classification accuracy as well as task characteristics that may improve its diagnostic utility.
more »
« less
Classification accuracy of the Quick Interactive Language Screener for preschool children with and without developmental language disorder
Abstract Introduction This research examined the classification accuracy of the Quick Interactive Language Screener (QUILS) for identifying preschool-aged children (3;0 to 6;9) with developmental language disorder (DLD). We present data from two independent samples that varied in prevalence and diagnostic reference standard. Methods Study 1 included a clinical sample of children (54 with DLD; 13 without) who completed the QUILS and a standardized assessment of expressive grammar (Syntax subtest from the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation–Norm Referenced; Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test–Preschool 2nd Edition; or Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test–3 rd Edition). Study 2 included a community sample of children (25 with DLD; 101 without) who completed the QUILS and the Auditory Comprehension subtest of the Preschool Language Scales–5th Edition (PLS-5; Zimmerman et al., 2011). Discriminant analyses were conducted to compare classification accuracy (i.e., sensitivity and specificity) using the normreferenced cut score (< 25th percentile) with empirically derived cut scores. Results In Study 1, the QUILS led to low fail rates (i.e., high specificity) in children without impairment and statistically significant group differences as a function of children's clinical status; however, only 65% of children with DLD were accurately identified using the norm-referenced cutoff. In Study 2, 76% of children with DLD were accurately identified at the 25th percentile cutoff and accuracy improved to 84% when an empirically derived cutoff (<32nd percentile) was applied. Conclusions Findings support the clinical application of the QUILS as a component of the screening process for identifying the presence or absence of DLD in community samples of preschool-aged children.
more »
« less
- Award ID(s):
- 1748298
- PAR ID:
- 10476485
- Publisher / Repository:
- Elsevier
- Date Published:
- Journal Name:
- Journal of Communication Disorders
- Volume:
- 100
- Issue:
- C
- ISSN:
- 0021-9924
- Page Range / eLocation ID:
- 106276
- Subject(s) / Keyword(s):
- Developmental language disorder, language screening
- Format(s):
- Medium: X
- Sponsoring Org:
- National Science Foundation
More Like this
-
-
Language in autism is heterogeneous, with a significant proportion of individuals having structural language difficulties and inclusion of language impairment as a specifier under Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.) criteria for autism. This systematic review asked: What are the reporting patterns of variables pertaining to structural language in autism prior to and after publication of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.)? What norm-referenced assessments does research use to characterize the language abilities of autistic individuals with respect to language impairment? This preregistered review (PROSPERO: CRD42021260394) followed Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. Searches took place in September 2022 and included Linguistics and Language Behavior Abstracts, PsycINFO, PubMed, and the Directory of Open Access Journals. Search terms included three essential concepts: autism, language, and age. Two coders independently screened and evaluated articles. Searches yielded 57 qualifying studies, with mostly consistent reporting practices prior to and after the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.). Studies varied in how they defined language groups and in what norm-referenced measures they used. Interpreting research on structural language in autism requires attention to diagnostic and grouping criteria. Although inconsistency in reporting in original studies limited this review, better understanding the available information on structural language in autistic individuals aged 3–21 years may support identification of language needs. Lay abstractUnder the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (5th ed.), language impairment can co-occur with autism. It is not yet clear how research defines, reports, and characterizes structural language abilities of autistic individuals eligible for school-based special education services (aged 3–21 years) in the United States. In the United States, students typically must be formally diagnosed to be eligible for services and supports. However, the quality of diagnosis is only as good as the research evidence on which diagnosis depends. To evaluate evidence quality, we examined how studies of school-aged autistic individuals report assessments of language ability. This systematic review included 57 studies using English language age-referenced assessments used to measure structural language. Findings showed many differences across studies in how language abilities were measured and reported. Also, none of the studies fully reported the variables relevant to characterizing language impairment. Outcomes were similar across versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. Findings indicate that researchers and clinicians should pay attention to reporting diagnostic and grouping criteria. Carefully interpreting research evidence is critical for ensuring that diagnostic criteria and supports are representative of and accessible to autistic individuals and relevant parties.more » « less
-
The goals of the current study were: 1) to modify and expand an existing spatial mathematical language coding system to include quantitative mathematical language terms and 2) to examine the extent to which preschool-aged children used spatial and quantitative mathematical language during a block play intervention. Participants included 24 preschool-aged children (Age M = 57.35 months) who were assigned to a block play intervention. Children participated in up to 14 sessions of 15-to-20-minute block play across seven weeks. Results demonstrated that spatial mathematical language terms were used with a higher raw frequency than quantitative mathematical language terms during the intervention sessions. However, once weighted frequencies were calculated to account for the number of codes in each category, spatial language was only used slightly more than quantitative language during block play. Similar patterns emerged between domains within the spatial and quantitative language categories. These findings suggest that both quantitative and spatial mathematical language usage should be evaluated when considering whether child activities can improve mathematical learning and spatial performance. Further, accounting for the number of codes within categories provided a more representative presentation of how mathematical language was used versus solely utilizing raw word counts. Implications for future research are discussed.more » « less
-
null (Ed.)Purpose The aims of the study were to explore responses of children with developmental language disorder (DLD) to rich vocabulary instruction and to identify potential factors that contribute to outcomes. Method Children with DLD participated in a language intervention embedded within a science camp. Using parent and clinician reports, standardized tests, probes, notes, and video, we derived descriptions of seven of the campers who received a vocabulary intervention that incorporated principles of rich instruction. We present them here as a case series. Results Five cases responded to the intervention with modest gains in Tier 2 science vocabulary and science knowledge. One case demonstrated no response, and another was unable to complete the intervention. The latter two cases presented with triple risks: DLD, executive function deficits, and stressors associated with poverty. In comparison, the best responder also lived in poverty and had DLD, but he had intact executive function, strengths in extant vocabulary, stronger knowledge of science, better engagement in the science and language intervention activities, and was older. Other factors that seemed to contribute to outcomes included the complexity of the word forms and dosage. Conclusions Translating research on rich instruction to clinical practice is challenging. This case series motivated hypotheses about the nature of the challenge and what to do about it, the primary one being that the modest success of rich vocabulary instruction for children with DLD is not a limitation of the approach itself but rather a reflection of the difficulty of delivering the intervention while tailoring the targets, approach, and dosage to the needs of individual children with DLD. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.13667699more » « less
-
Speech-language pathologists are familiar with eligibility criteria for school-based special education services under IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. In order for children with speech and language disorders to be eligible for services, they need to fit one of the thirteen categories of disabilities. However, these 13 categories do not always align well with current evidence-based diagnoses of neurodiverse conditions. It is because of these challenges that we, as members of the National Artificial Intelligence Institute for Exceptional Education, are particularly grateful to the US Department of Education's Office of Special Education programs for issuing new guidance on the use of DLD to accurately describe the speech and language needs of individual children, no matter what eligibility category they fall into. We are also grateful to members and leaders of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association for their strong advocacy to raise the community's awareness of this new guidance. Therefore, our Institute will be another strong advocate for children with DLD so that they can eventually benefit from our Institute's research. We believe that the recognition of DLD as a disability can greatly help these children and their families.more » « less
- Free Publicly Accessible Full Text
-
Accepted Manuscript1.0
- Journal Article:
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcomdis.2022.106276
