Background: Prospective evidence on psychological outcomes for children with specific language impairments (SLI) is accumulating. To date, there has been no attempt to summarise what this evidence ...says about the strength of link between SLI and later child and adolescent emotional and behavioural (EB) outcomes.
Methods: We undertook a systematic review and meta‐analysis (following PRISMA guidelines and involving a literature search to June 2012 of seven databases, including MEDLINE and PsychAPA) of prospective, cohort studies of children with SLI and typical language development (TLD) reporting on the incidence and severity of EB problems later in childhood or adolescence.
Results: Nineteen follow‐up reports of eight cohorts with 553 SLI children and 1533 TLD controls were identified. Initial assessment was at 3–8.8 years of age and follow‐up duration from 2 to 12 years. Pooled across comparable studies, SLI children were about two times more likely to show disorder levels of overall internalising problems, overall externalising and ADHD problems than TLD children. Compared with the average TLD child (50 percentile), at follow‐up, the symptom severity of the average SLI child was at the 72 percentile (95% CI 65–79 percentile) on internalising symptoms, the 69 percentile (95% CI 63–74 percentile) on externalising symptoms and the 60 percentile (95% CI 52–68 percentile) on AHDH severity. The findings about risk to specific mental disorders and the severity of specific problems were inconclusive.
Conclusions: Relative to typical children, SLI children experience clinically important increases in the severity of diverse emotional, behavioural and ADHD symptoms and more frequently show a clinical level of these problems. The small number of studies included in pooled analysis and methodological heterogeneity reduce the precision and generalisability of the findings. Most studies do not account for initial levels of EB problems.
Background
Lack of agreement about criteria and terminology for children's language problems affects access to services as well as hindering research and practice. We report the second phase of a ...study using an online Delphi method to address these issues. In the first phase, we focused on criteria for language disorder. Here we consider terminology.
Methods
The Delphi method is an iterative process in which an initial set of statements is rated by a panel of experts, who then have the opportunity to view anonymised ratings from other panel members. On this basis they can either revise their views or make a case for their position. The statements are then revised based on panel feedback, and again rated by and commented on by the panel. In this study, feedback from a second round was used to prepare a final set of statements in narrative form. The panel included 57 individuals representing a range of professions and nationalities.
Results
We achieved at least 78% agreement for 19 of 21 statements within two rounds of ratings. These were collapsed into 12 statements for the final consensus reported here. The term ‘Language Disorder’ is recommended to refer to a profile of difficulties that causes functional impairment in everyday life and is associated with poor prognosis. The term, ‘Developmental Language Disorder’ (DLD) was endorsed for use when the language disorder was not associated with a known biomedical aetiology. It was also agreed that (a) presence of risk factors (neurobiological or environmental) does not preclude a diagnosis of DLD, (b) DLD can co‐occur with other neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g. ADHD) and (c) DLD does not require a mismatch between verbal and nonverbal ability.
Conclusions
This Delphi exercise highlights reasons for disagreements about terminology for language disorders and proposes standard definitions and nomenclature.
Background
Delayed, abnormal language is a common feature of autism and language therapy often a significant component of recommended treatment. However, as with other disorders with a language ...component, we know surprisingly little about the language trajectories and how varied these might be across different children. Thus, we know little about how and when language problems might resolve, whether there are periods of relative stability or lack of change and what periods might offer more favourable circumstances for intervention.
Methods
Expressive and receptive language was measured on six occasions between age 2 and 19 on a cohort of 192 children initially referred for autism. Latent class growth models were fitted to characterize the patterns of heterogeneous development.
Results
Latent class growth analysis identified seven classes. Between age 6 and 19, all classes tracked in parallel. Between ages 2 and 6, development was more heterogeneous with considerable variation in relative progress. In all groups, receptive and expressive language developed very largely in tandem.
Conclusions
The results confirmed previous analysis of children with specific language impairment where progress beyond age 6 was remarkably uniform. Greater variation was evident before this age with some groups making clearly better or worse progress compared to others. While this developmental heterogeneity may simply be a reflection of variation in preexisting and unchanging biological disposition, it may also reflect, at least in part, greater sensitivity in the early years to environments that are more or less supportive of language development. These findings contribute to the case for the importance of early intervention.
Evidence is required as to when and where to focus resources to achieve the greatest gains for children's language development. Key to these decisions is the understanding of individual differences ...in children's language trajectories and the predictors of those differences. To determine optimal timing we must understand if and when children's relative language abilities become fixed. To determine where to focus effort we must identify mutable factors, that is those with the potential to be changed through interventions, which are associated with significant differences in children's language scores and rate of progress.
Uniquely this study examined individual differences in language growth trajectories in a population sample of children between 4 and 7 years using the multilevel model for change. The influence of predictors, grouped with respect to their mutability and their proximity to the child (least-mutable, mutable-distal, mutable-proximal), were estimated.
A significant degree of variability in rate of progress between 4 and 7 years was evident, much of which was systematically associated with mutable-proximal factors, that is, those factors with evidence that they are modifiable through interventions with the child or family, such as shared book reading, TV viewing and number of books in the home. Mutable-distal factors, such as family income, family literacy and neighbourhood disadvantage, hypothesised to be modifiable through social policy, were important predictors of language abilities at 4 years.
Potential levers for language interventions lie in the child's home learning environment from birth to age 4. However, the role of a family's material and cultural capital must not be ignored, nor should the potential for growth into the school years. Early Years services should acknowledge the effects of multiple, cascading and cumulative risks and seek to promote child language development through the aggregation of marginal gains in the pre-school years and beyond.
Although the symptoms of autism exhibit quantitative distributions in nature, estimates of recurrence risk in families have never previously considered or incorporated quantitative characterization ...of the autistic phenotype among siblings.
The authors report the results of quantitative characterization of 2,920 children from 1,235 families participating in a national volunteer register, with at least one child clinically affected by an autism spectrum disorder and at least one full biological sibling.
A traditionally defined autism spectrum disorder in an additional child occurred in 10.9% of the families. An additional 20% of nonautism-affected siblings had a history of language delay, one-half of whom exhibited autistic qualities of speech. Quantitative characterization using the Social Responsiveness Scale supported previously reported aggregation of a wide range of subclinical (quantitative) autistic traits among otherwise unaffected children in multiple-incidence families and a relative absence of quantitative autistic traits among siblings in single-incidence families. Girls whose standardized severity ratings fell above a first percentile severity threshold (relative to the general population distribution) were significantly less likely to have elicited community diagnoses than their male counterparts.
These data suggest that, depending on how it is defined, sibling recurrence in autism spectrum disorder may exceed previously published estimates and varies as a function of family type. The results support differences in mechanisms of genetic transmission between simplex and multiplex autism and advance current understanding of the genetic epidemiology of autism spectrum conditions.
A recent project entitled CATALISE used the Delphi method to reach a consensus on terminology for unexplained language problems in children. ‘Developmental language disorder’ (DLD) was the term ...agreed by a panel of 57 experts. Here I reflect on points of difficulty that arose when attempting to reach a consensus, using qualitative information from comments made by panel members to illustrate the kinds of argument used. One issue of debate was the use of labels, in particular the term ‘disorder’, which was seen as having both pros and cons. The potential for labels to stigmatize or create low expectations was a particular concern. However, labels could also ensure language problems were not trivialized and could help avoid stigma by providing an explanation for behaviours that might otherwise meet with disapproval. Further debate surrounded issues of how best to identify cases of disorder. Although it was agreed there should be a focus on cases with a poor prognosis, it was recognized that our knowledge of factors related to prognosis was still incomplete. Furthermore, there was a tension between use of standardized tests, which allow for a relatively objective and reliable assessment of language, and more qualitative observations, which can capture functional aspects of communication that are not always picked up on formal assessment. Debate also surrounded the issue of the relationship between DLD and other conditions. Some favoured drawing a distinction between DLD and language disorders associated with other conditions, and others regarded such distinctions as unnecessary. We concluded that it was misleading to assume co‐occurring conditions were causes of language disorder, but it was helpful to distinguish DLD from cases of language disorder associated with ‘differentiating conditions’ that had a known or likely biomedical origin, including brain injury, sensorineural hearing loss, genetic syndromes, intellectual disability and autism spectrum disorder. Furthermore, DLD could co‐occur with milder neurodevelopmental disorders that did not have a clear biomedical aetiology. Normal‐range non‐verbal IQ has traditionally been incorporated in the diagnosis of DLD, but this was rejected as unsupported by evidence. DLD is a category that has utility in identifying children who would benefit from speech–language therapy services, but it should not be thought of as a well‐defined condition. DLD has a multifactorial aetiology, is heterogeneous in terms of language features and overlaps with other neurodevelopmental disorders. Our notions of DLD are likely to be refined by further research into aetiology, associated characteristics and intervention effectiveness.
Background
Studies estimate that 30% of individuals with autism are minimally verbal. Understanding what factors predict longer‐term expressive development in children with language delays is ...critical to inform identification and treatment of those at‐risk for persistent language impairments. The present study examined predictors of expressive language development in language‐delayed preschoolers followed through later school‐age and young adulthood.
Methods
Children using single words or less on the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) at approximately 3 years old were drawn from the Early Diagnosis (EDX) and Pathways in ASD longitudinal cohorts. Age‐3 predictors of Age‐19 ADOS language level were identified using Classification and Regression Trees (CART) in the EDX sample. Linear mixed models examined the effects of CART‐identified predictors on Vineland expressive communication (VExp) trajectories from Age‐3 to Age‐19. The same linear mixed models were examined in the Pathways sample, identifying predictors of VExp from ages 3 to 10.5 years.
Results
Significantly delayed fine motor skills (T‐score < 20) was the strongest CART predictor of Age‐19 language. In the linear mixed models, time, Age‐3 fine motor skills and initiation of joint attention (IJA) predicted VExp trajectories in the EDX sample, even when controlling for Age‐3 visual receptive abilities. In the Pathways sample, time and Age‐3 fine motor skills were significant predictors of VExp trajectories; IJA and cognitive skills were not significant predictors.
Conclusions
Marked deficits in fine motor skills may be a salient proxy marker for identifying language‐delayed children with ASD who are at risk for persistent language impairments. This finding adds to the literature demonstrating a relation between motor and language development in ASD. Investigating individual skill areas (e.g., fine motor and nonverbal problem‐solving skills), rather than broader indices of developmental level (e.g., nonverbal IQ) may provide important cues to understanding longer‐term language outcomes that can be targeted in early intervention.
Objective To identify risk and protective factors for late talking in toddlers between 24 and 30 months of age in a large community-based cohort. Study design A prospective, longitudinal pregnancy ...cohort of 1023 mother-infant pairs in metropolitan Calgary, Canada, were followed across 5 time points: before 25 weeks gestation, between 34-36 weeks gestation, and at 4, 12, and 24 months postpartum. Toddlers who scored ≤10th percentile on The MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories: Words and Sentences between 24 and 30 months of age were identified as late talkers. Thirty-four candidate characteristics theoretically and/or empirically linked to language development and/or language impairment were collected using survey methodology. Results The prevalence of late talking was 12.6%. Risk factors for late talking in the multivariable model included: male sex ( P = .017) and a family history of late talking and/or diagnosed speech or language delay ( P = .002). Toddlers were significantly less likely to be late talkers if they engaged in informal play opportunities ( P = .013), were read to or shown picture books daily ( P < .001), or cared for primarily in child care centers ( P = .001). Conclusions Both biological and environmental factors were associated with the development of late talking. Biological factors placed toddlers at risk for late talking, and facets of the environment played a protective role. Enveloping infants and toddlers in language-rich milieus that promote opportunities for playing, reading, and sharing books daily may decrease risk for delayed early vocabulary.
Using online measures of familiar word recognition in the looking-while-listening procedure, this prospective longitudinal study revealed robust links between processing efficiency and vocabulary ...growth from 18 to 30 months in children classified as typically developing (n = 46) and as "late talkers" (n = 36) at 18 months.Those late talkers who were more efficient in word recognition at 18 months were also more likely to "bloom," showing more accelerated vocabulary growth over the following year, compared with late talkers less efficient in early speech processing. Such findings support the emerging view that early differences in processing efficiency evident in infancy have cascading consequences for later learning and may be continuous with individual differences in language proficiency observed in older children and adults.
Preterm-born children (<37 weeks' gestation) have higher rates of language function problems compared with term-born children. It is unknown whether these problems decrease, deteriorate, or remain ...stable over time. The goal of this research was to determine the developmental course of language functions in preterm-born children from 3 to 12 years of age.
Computerized databases Embase, PubMed, Web of Knowledge, and PsycInfo were searched for studies published between January 1995 and March 2011 reporting language functions in preterm-born children. Outcome measures were simple language function assessed by using the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test and complex language function assessed by using the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals. Pooled effect sizes (in terms of Cohen's d) and 95% confidence intervals (CI) for simple and complex language functions were calculated by using random-effects models. Meta-regression was conducted with mean difference of effect size as the outcome variable and assessment age as the explanatory variable.
Preterm-born children scored significantly lower compared with term-born children on simple (d = -0.45 95% CI: -0.59 to -0.30; P < .001) and on complex (d = -0.62 95% CI: -0.82 to -0.43; P < .001) language function tests, even in the absence of major disabilities and independent of social economic status. For complex language function (but not for simple language function), group differences between preterm- and term-born children increased significantly from 3 to 12 years of age (slope = -0.05; P = .03).
While growing up, preterm-born children have increasing difficulties with complex language function.
PDF
