Developmental language disorder

Developmental language disorder (DLD) is identified when a child has problems with language development that continue into school age and beyond. The language problems have a significant impact on everyday social interactions or educational progress, and occur in the absence of autism spectrum disorder, intellectual disability or a known biomedical condition. The most obvious problems are difficulties in using words and sentences to express meanings, but for many children, understanding of language (receptive language) is also a challenge, although this may not be evident unless the child is given a formal assessment and nl tos

Classification

Terminology

The term developmental language disorder (DLD) was endorsed in a consensus study involving a panel of experts (CATALISE Consortium) in 2017.[1] The study was conducted in response to concerns that a wide range of terminology was used in this area, with the consequence that there was poor communication, lack of public recognition, and in some cases children were denied access to services. Developmental language disorder is a subset of language disorder, which is itself a subset of the broader category of speech, language and communication needs (SLCN).

The terminology for children’s language disorders has been extremely wide-ranging and confusing, with many labels that have overlapping but not necessarily identical meanings.[2] In part this confusion reflected uncertainty about the boundaries of DLD, and the existence of different subtypes. Historically, the terms ‘’developmental dysphasia’’ or ‘’developmental aphasia’’ were used to describe children with the clinical picture of DLD.[3] These terms have, however, largely been abandoned, as they suggest parallels with adult acquired aphasia. This is misleading, as DLD is not caused by brain damage.[4]

Although the term DLD has been used for many years, it has been less common than the term specific language impairment (SLI),[2] which has been widely adopted, especially in North America.[5] The definition of SLI overlaps with DLD, but was rejected by the CATALISE panel because it was seen as overly restrictive in implying that the child had relatively pure problems with language in the absence of any other impairments. Children with such selective problems are relatively rare, and there is no evidence that they respond differently to intervention, or have different causal factors, from other children with language problems.[6]

In the UK education system the term speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) is widely used, but this is far broader than DLD, and includes children with speech, language and social communication difficulties arising from a wide range of causes.[7]

The question of whether to refer to children's language problems as ‘disorder’ was a topic of debate among the CATALISE consortium, but the conclusion was that ‘disorder’ conveyed the serious nature and potential consequences of persistent language deficits. It is also parallel with other neurodevelopmental conditions and consistent with diagnostic frameworks such as DSM-5 and ICD-11.[1] Where there are milder or more transient difficulties, language difficulties may be a more appropriate term.

Types of language difficulty

DLD can affect a range of areas of language and the degree of impairment in different areas of language can vary from child to child.[8] However, although there have been attempts to define different subtypes, these have not generally resulted in robust categories.[9] The recommendation of the CATALISE panel was that the specific areas of impairment should be assessed and documented for individual children, while recognizing that different children might have different combinations of problems. The areas which can be affected are:

  • Grammar – This involves the ability to combine words into grammatically correct sentences (syntax) and to combine parts of words together (morphology) such as adding grammatical endings to verbs like -ing or -ed or to add prefixes and suffixes like dis- or -ation. For instance, a child may say 'me jump here', instead of 'I jumped here'.[10] Comprehension of sentences can also be affected. For instance, there may be difficulty understanding meaning expressed by word order, and so confusion about what is blue in a sentence like 'the pencil on the shoe is blue',[11] and a tendency to use general knowledge rather than linguistic cues to meaning,[12] or problems in interpreting grammatical markers of number or tense.[13]
  • Semantics – This refers to children’s ability to understand the meaning of words and how meanings are expressed by combining words together. Children with DLD often have limited vocabulary and may make heavy use of a small set of words with rather general meanings.[14]
  • Word finding – Children with word finding difficulties may know a word, but have difficulty accessing it for production[15] – similar to the tip of the tongue phenomenon.
  • Pragmatics – Pragmatics refers to the ability to select the appropriate message, or interpret what others say, in relation to context. Pragmatic difficulties can give an impression of oddity, with the content of language not fitting the environmental or social context; comprehension may be over-literal; the child may chatter incessantly, be poor at turn-taking in conversation and maintaining a topic [16]
  • Discourse – Discourse refers to a level of organisation of language beyond the sentence. Child with limitations in this domain may have limited ability to tell a story or describe a set of events in a logical sequence [17]
  • Verbal memory and learning – Problems with remembering words or sentences can affect both the learning of new vocabulary,[18] and the understanding of long or complex sentences.[19]
  • Phonology – Phonology is the branch of linguistics concerned with the way sounds are combined together in words. Children with difficulties with phonology may fail to distinguish between certain speech sounds, such as 't' and 'k', so that 'cake' is produced as 'tate'. Such difficulties are not unusual as part of typical development in toddlers, but they would usually resolve by the time children are 4–5 years old.[20] Difficulties with producing some speech sounds accurately may reduce intelligibility of speech.[21] In addition, more subtle difficulties in recognising specific sounds in words (phonological awareness) can lead to literacy difficulties.[22]

Relationship with speech disorders

Speech is the act of articulating sounds, and this can be impaired for all kinds of reasons – a structural problem such as cleft lip and cleft palate, a neurological problem affecting motor control of the speech apparatus dysarthria, or inability to perceive distinctions between sounds because of hearing loss. Some distortions of speech sounds, such as a lisp, are commonly seen in young children. These misarticulations should not be confused with language problems, which involve the ability to select and combine linguistic elements to express meanings, and the ability to comprehend meanings. Although speech disorders can be distinguished from language disorders, they can also co-occur.[23] When a child fails to produce distinctions between speech sounds for no obvious reason, this is typically regarded as a language problem affecting the learning of phonological contrasts. The classification of and terminology for disorders of speech sound production is a subject of considerable debate.[24] In practice, even for those with specialist skills, it is not always easy to distinguish between phonological disorders and other types of speech production problem. Speech sound disorder (SSD) is any problem with speech production arising from any cause.[25] Speech sound disorders of unknown cause that are not accompanied by other language problems are a relatively common reason for young children to be referred to speech-language therapy (speech-language pathology).[26] These often resolve by around 4–5 years of age with specialist intervention,[27] and so would not meet criteria for DLD. Where such problems continue beyond five years of age, they are usually accompanied by problems in broader language domains and have a poorer prognosis,[28] so a diagnosis of DLD with SSD is then appropriate.

Relationship with other neurodevelopmental disorders

DLD often co-occurs with milder neurodevelopmental disorders of unknown origin, such as attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, developmental dyslexia or developmental co-ordination disorder.[6] These do not preclude a diagnosis of DLD, but should be noted as co-occurring conditions.

Risk factors

It is generally accepted that DLD is strongly influenced by genetic factors.[29] The best evidence comes from the twin study method. Two twins growing up together are exposed to the same home environment, yet may differ radically in their language skills. Such different outcomes are, however, much more common in fraternal (non-identical) twins, who are genetically different. Identical twins share the same genes and tend to be much more similar in language ability. There can be some variation in the severity and persistence of DLD in identical twins, indicating that non-genetic factors affect the course of disorder, but it is unusual to find a child with DLD who has an identical twin with typical language.[30]

There was considerable excitement when a large, multigenerational family with a high rate of DLD were found to have a mutation of the FOXP2 gene just in the affected family members.[31] However, subsequent studies have found that, though DLD runs in families, it is not usually caused by a mutation in FOXP2 or another specific gene.[32] Current evidence suggests that there are many different genes that can influence language learning, and DLD results when a child inherits a particularly detrimental combination of risk factors, each of which may have only a small effect.[29] Nevertheless, study of the mode of action of the FOXP2 gene has helped identify other common genetic variants involved in the same neural pathways that may play a part in causing DLD.[33]

Language disorders are associated with aspects of home environment, and it is often assumed that this is a causal link, with poor language stimulation leading to weak language skills. Twin studies, however, show that two children in the same home environment can have very different language outcomes, suggesting we should consider other explanations for the link. Children with DLD often grow up into adults who have relatively low educational attainments,[34] and their children may share a genetic risk for language disorder.[2]

One non-genetic factor that is known to have a specific impact on language development is being a younger sibling in a large family.[35]

Associated factors

It has long been noted that males are more affected by DLD than females, with a sex ratio of affected males: females around 3 or 4:1 [36] However, the sex difference is much less striking in epidemiological samples, suggesting that similar problems may exist in females but are less likely to be detected.[37] The reason for the sex difference is not well understood.

Poor motor skills are commonly found in children with DLD.[38]

Brain scans do not usually reveal any obvious abnormalities in children with DLD, although quantitative comparisons have found differences in brain size or relative proportions of white or grey matter in specific regions.[39] In some cases, unusual brain gyri are found.[40] To date, no consistent 'neural signature' for DLD has been found, although some studies have noted evidence for involvement of subcortical systems.[41] Differences in the brains of children with DLD vs typically developing children are subtle and may overlap with atypical patterns seen in other neurodevelopmental disorders.[42]

Diagnosis

DLD is defined purely in behavioural terms: there is no biological test. There are three points that need to be met for a diagnosis of DLD:[1]

  1. The child has language difficulties that create obstacles to communication or learning in everyday life,
  2. The child's language problems are unlikely to resolve by five years of age, and
  3. The problems are not associated with a known biomedical condition such as brain injury, neurodegenerative conditions, genetic conditions or chromosome disorders such as Down syndrome, sensorineural hearing loss, or autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability.

For research and epidemiological purposes, specific cutoffs on language assessments have been used to document the first criterion. Tomblin et al.[43] proposed the EpiSLI criterion, based on five composite scores representing performance in three domains of language (vocabulary, grammar, and narration) and two modalities (comprehension and production). Children scoring in the lowest 10% on two or more composite scores are identified as having language disorder.

The second criterion, persistence of language problems, can be difficult to judge in a young child, but longitudinal studies have shown that difficulties are less likely to resolve for children who have poor language comprehension, rather than difficulties confined to expressive language.[1] In addition, children with isolated difficulties in just one of the areas noted under 'subtypes' tend to make better progress than those whose language is impaired in several areas.[28]

The third criterion specifies that DLD is used for children whose language disorder is not part of another biomedical condition, such as a genetic syndrome, a sensorineural hearing loss, neurological disease, autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability – these were termed 'differentiating conditions' by the CATALISE panel.[1] Language disorders occurring with these conditions need to be assessed and children offered appropriate intervention, but a terminological distinction is made so that these cases would be diagnosed as language disorder associated with the main diagnosis being specified: e.g. "language disorder associated with autism spectrum disorder." The reasoning behind these diagnostic distinctions is discussed further by Bishop (2017).[44]

Assessment

Assessment will usually include an interview with the child’s caregiver, observation of the child in an unstructured setting, a hearing test, and standardized tests of language.[45] There is a wide range of language assessments in English. Some are restricted for use by experts in speech-language pathology: speech and language therapists (SaLTs/SLTs) in the UK, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the US and Australia. A commonly used test battery for diagnosis of DLD is the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF). Assessments that can be completed by a parent or teacher can be useful to identify children who may require more in-depth evaluation. The Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC–2) is a parent questionnaire suitable for assessing everyday use of language in children aged four years and above who can speak in sentences. Informal assessments, such as language samples, are often used by speech-language therapists/pathologists to complement formal testing and give an indication of the child's language in a more naturalistic context. A language sample may be of a conversation or narrative retell. In a narrative language sample, an adult may tell the child a story using a wordless picture book (e.g. Frog Where Are You?, Mayer, 1969), then ask the child to use the pictures and tell the story back. Language samples can be transcribed using computer software such as the Systematic Analysis of Language Software, and then analyzed for a range of features: e.g., the grammatical complexity of the child's utterances, whether the child introduces characters to their story or jumps right in, whether the events follow a logical order, and whether the narrative includes a main idea or theme and supporting details.

Treatment

Treatment is usually carried out by speech and language therapists/pathologists, who use a wide range of techniques to stimulate language learning.[46] In the past, there was a vogue for drilling children in grammatical exercises, using imitation and elicitation, but such methods fell into disuse when it became apparent that there was little generalisation to everyday situations. Contemporary approaches to enhancing development of language structure, for younger children at least, are more likely to adopt 'milieu' methods, in which the intervention is interwoven into natural episodes of communication, and the therapist builds on the child's utterances, rather than dictating what will be talked about. Interventions for older children, may be more explicit, telling the children what areas are being targeted and giving explanations regarding the rules and structures they are learning, often with visual supports.[47][48]

In addition, there has been a move away from a focus solely on grammar and phonology toward interventions that develop children's social use of language, often working in small groups that may include typically developing as well as language-impaired peers.[49]

Another way in contemporary remediation differ from the past is that parents are more likely to be directly involved, but this approach is largely used with preschool children, rather than those whose problems persist into school age.[50][51]

For school-aged children, teachers are increasingly involved in intervention, either in collaboration with speech and language therapists/pathologists, or as the main agents of delivery of the intervention. Evidence for the benefits of a collaborative approach is emerging,[52] but the benefits of asking education staff to be the main deliverers of SLT intervention (the “consultative” approach) are unclear.[53] When SLT intervention is delivered indirectly by trained SLT assistants, however, there are indications that this can be effective.[54]

A radically different approach has been developed by Tallal and colleagues, who devised a computer-based intervention, FastForWord, that involves prolonged and intensive training on specific components of language and auditory processing.[55] The theory underlying FastForword maintains that language difficulties are caused by a failure to make fine-grained auditory discriminations in the temporal dimension, and the computerised training materials are designed to sharpen perceptual acuity. However, a systematic review of clinical trials assessing FastForWord reported no significant gains relative to a control group.[56]

In this field, randomized controlled trial methodology has not been widely used, and this makes it difficult to assess clinical efficacy with confidence. Children's language will tend to improve over time, and without controlled studies, it can be hard to know how much of observed change is down to a specific treatment. There is, however, increasing evidence that direct 1:1 intervention with an SLT/P can be effective for improving vocabulary and expressive language.[57] There have been few studies of interventions that target receptive language,[58] though some positive outcomes have been reported.[59][60][61]

Outcome

Longitudinal studies indicate that problems are largely resolved by five years of age in around 40% of four-year-olds with early language delays who have no other presenting risk factors.[28] However, for children who still have significant language difficulties at school entry, reading problems are common, even for children who receive specialist help,[62] and educational attainments are typically poor.[63] Poor outcomes are most common in cases where comprehension as well as expressive language is affected.[64] There is also evidence that scores on tests of nonverbal ability of children with DLD decrease over the course of development.[65]

DLD is associated with an elevated risk of social, emotional and mental health concerns.[66] For instance, in a UK survey, 64% of a sample of 11-year-olds with DLD scored above a clinical threshold on a questionnaire for psychiatric difficulties, and 36% were regularly bullied, compared with 12% of comparison children.[67] In the longer-term, studies of adult outcomes of children with DLD have found elevated rates of unemployment, social isolation and psychiatric disorder among those with early comprehension difficulties.[68] However, better outcomes are found for children who have milder difficulties and do not require special educational provision.[69]

Prevalence

Epidemiological surveys, in the US[70] and the UK[37] converge in estimating the prevalence of DLD in five-year-olds at around 7%.

Research

Much research has focused on trying to identify what makes language learning so hard for some children.[71] A major divide is between theories that attribute the difficulties to a low-level problem with auditory temporal processing,[72] and those that propose there is a deficit in a specialised language-learning system.[73][74] Other accounts emphasise deficits in specific aspects of learning and memory.[75][76] It can be difficult to choose between theories because they do not always make distinctive predictions, and there is considerable heterogeneity among children with DLD. It has also been suggested that DLD may only arise when more than one underlying deficit is present.[77]

See also

References
  1. Bishop, D. V. M., Snowling, M. J., Thompson, P. A., Greenhalgh, T., & The CATALISE Consortium. (2017). Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychiatry. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158753
  2. Bishop, D. V. M. (2014). Ten questions about terminology for children with unexplained language problems. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 49(4), 381-415. doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12101
  3. Ingram, T. T. S., & Reid, J. F. (1956). Developmental aphasia observed in a department of child psychiatry. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 31, 161-172.
  4. Rapin, I. (1996). Developmental language disorders: a clinical update. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 643-655. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.1996.tb01456.x
  5. Leonard, L. B. (1991). Specific language impairment as a clinical category. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 22, 66-68. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.2202.66
  6. Bishop, D. V. M., Snowling, M. J., Thompson, P. A., Greenhalgh, T., & The CATALISE Consortium. (2016). CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study. Identifying language impairments in children. PLOS One, 11(7), e0158753. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0158753
  7. Bercow, J. (2008). The Bercow Report: A Review of Services for Children and Young People (0-19) with Speech, Language and Communication Needs Archived 2012-10-16 at the Wayback Machine. Nottingham: DCSF Publications. However, the UK special educational needs system uses SLCN in a manner which is more similar to DLD.
  8. van Weerdenburg, M., Verhoeven, L., & van Balkom, H. (2006). Towards a typology of specific language impairment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47(2), 176-189.
  9. Conti-Ramsden, G., & Botting, N. (1999). Classification of children with specific language impairment: Longitudinal considerations. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 42(5), 1195-1204.
  10. Leonard, L. B. (2014). Children with specific language impairment, 2nd edition. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  11. Bishop, D. V. M. (1982). Comprehension of spoken, written and signed sentences in childhood language disorders. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 23, 1-20.
  12. Paul, R. (1990). Comprehension strategies: interactions between world knowledge and the development of sentence comprehension. Topics in Language Disorders, 10(3), 63-75.
  13. Leonard, L. B., & Deevy, P. (2010). and aspect in sentence interpretation by children with specific language impairment. Journal of Child Language, 37(2), 395-418.
  14. Rice, M. L., & Bode, J. V. (1993). GAPS in the verb lexicons of children with specific language impairment. First Language, 13(37), 113-131. doi:10.1177/014272379301303707
  15. German, D. J. (1992 ). Word finding intervention for children and adolescents. Topics in Language Disorders, 13, 33-50.
  16. Adams, C. (2001). Clinical diagnostic and intervention studies of children with semantic-pragmatic language disorder. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 36, 289-305.
  17. Van der Lely, H. K. J. (1997). Narrative discourse in Grammatical specific language impairment: a modular language deficit? Journal of Child Language, 24, 221-256.
  18. Gathercole, S. (1993). Word learning in language impaired children. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 9, 187-199. doi:10.1177/026565909300900302
  19. Montgomery, J. (2002). Information processing and language comprehension in children with specific language impairment. Topics in Language Disorders, 22, 62-84.
  20. Rvachew, S., & Brosseau-Lapre, F. (2012). Developmental Phonological Disorders: Foundations of clinical Practice: Plural Publishing Inc.
  21. Klein, E. S., & Flint, C. B. (2006). Measurement of intelligibility in disordered speech. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 37(3), 191-199. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2006/021)
  22. Kamhi, A. G., Catts, H. W., Mauer, D., Apel, K., & Gentry, B. F. (1988). Phonological and spatial processing abilities in language- and reading-impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 53, 316-327.
  23. Shriberg, L. D., Tomblin, J. B., & McSweeny, J. L. (1999). Prevalence of speech delay in 6-year-old children and comorbidity with language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 42(6), 1461-1481.
  24. Waring, R., & Knight, R. (2013). How should children with speech sound disorders be classified? A review and critical evaluation of current classification systems. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 48(1), 25-40. doi:10.1111/j.1460-6984.2012.00195.x
  25. Bowen, C. (2015). Children's Speech Sound Disorders (2nd ed.). Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.
  26. Broomfield, J., & Dodd, B. (2004). Children with speech and language disability: caseload characteristics. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 39, 303-324.
  27. Law, J., Garrett, Z., & Nye, C. (2003). Speech and language therapy interventions for children with primary speech and language delay or disorder (Cochrane Review). The Cochrane Library, 3.
  28. Bishop, D. V. M., & Edmundson, A. (1987). Language-impaired four-year-olds: distinguishing transient from persistent impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 52, 156-173.
  29. Bishop, D. V. M. (2006). What causes specific language impairment in children? Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 217-221.
  30. Bishop, D. V. M., North, T., & Donlan, C. (1995). Genetic basis of specific language impairment: evidence from a twin study. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 37, 56-71.
  31. Fisher, S. E., Vargha Khadem, F., Watkins, K. E., Monaco, A. P., & Pembrey, M. E. (1998). Localisation of a gene implicated in a severe speech and language disorder. Nature Genetics, 18, 168-170.
  32. Fisher, S. E. (2006). Tangled webs: Tracing the connections between genes and cognition. Cognition, 101(2), 270-297. doi:10.1016/j.cognition.2006.04.004
  33. Fisher, S. E., & Scharff, C. (2009). FOXP2 as a molecular window into speech and language. Trends in genetics, 25(4), 166-177. doi:10.1016/j.tig.2009.03.002
  34. Whitehouse, A. J. O., Watt, H. J., Line, E. A., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2009). Adult psychosocial outcomes of children with specific language impairment, pragmatic language impairment and autism. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 44, 511-528.
  35. Fundudis, T., Kolvin, I., & Garside, R. (1979). Speech Retarded and Deaf Children: Their Psychological Development. London: Academic Press.
  36. Robinson, R. J. (1991). Causes and associations of severe and persistent specific speech and language disorders in children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 33, 943–962.
  37. Norbury, C. F., Gooch, D., Wray, C., Baird, G., Charman, T., Simonoff, E., . . . Pickles, A. (2016). The impact of nonverbal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder: evidence from a population study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, n/a-n/a. doi:10.1111/jcpp.12573
  38. Hill EL (2001). Non-specific nature of specific language impairment: a review of the literature with regard to concomitant motor impairments. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 36 (2): 149–71. doi:10.1080/13682820010019874. PMID 11344592
  39. Jernigan TL, Hesselink JR, Sowell E, Tallal PA (May 1991). Cerebral structure on magnetic resonance imaging in language- and learning-impaired children. Archives of Neurology, 48 (5): 539–45. doi:10.1001/archneur.1991.00530170103028. PMID 2021369.
  40. Jackson T, Plante E (1996). Gyral morphology in the posterior Sylvian region in families affected by developmental language disorder. Neuropsychology Review 6 (2): 81–94. doi:10.1007/bf01875369. PMID 8976499.
  41. Krishnan, S., Watkins, K., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2016). Neurobiological basis of language learning difficulties. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 20(9), 701-714. doi:10.1016/j.tics.2016.06.012
  42. Herbert MR, Kenet T (2007). Brain abnormalities in language disorders and in autism. Pediatric Clinics of North America, 54 (3): 563–83, vii. doi:10.1016/j.pcl.2007.02.007. PMID 17543910.
  43. Tomblin, J. B., Records, N. L., & Zhang, X. (1996). A system for the diagnosis of Specific Language Impairment in kindergarten children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 39(6), 1284. doi:10.1044/jshr.3906.1284
  44. Bishop, D. V. M. (2017). "Why is it so hard to reach agreement on terminology? The case of developmental language disorder (DLD)". International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. 52 (6): 671–680. doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12335. PMC 5697617. PMID 28714100.
  45. Paul, R. (2006). Language Disorders from Infancy through Adolescence: Assessment and Intervention, 3rd Edition. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book.
  46. Roth, F. P., & Worthington, C. K. (2010). Treatment resource manual for speech-language pathology, 4th edition. San Diego: Singular Publishing.
  47. Ebbels, S.H., Teaching grammar to school-aged children with Specific Language Impairment using Shape Coding. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 2007. 23(1): p. 67-93.
  48. Bryan, A., Colourful Semantics., in Language disorders in children and adults: psycholinguistic approaches to therapy., S. Chiat, J. Law, and J. Marshall, Editors. 1997, Whurr: London
  49. 1. Gallagher, T. (1996). Social-interactional approaches to child language intervention. In J. Beitchman, N. J. Cohen, M. M. Konstantareas & R. Tannock (Eds.), Language, Learning and Behavior Disorders: Developmental, Biological and Clinical Perspectives (pp. 493–514). New York: Cambridge University Press.
  50. Roberts, M.Y. and A.P. Kaiser (2011) The effectiveness of parent-implemented language interventions: A meta-analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 20(3), 180-199
  51. Tosh, R., W. Arnott, and N. Scarinci, Parent-implemented home therapy programs for speech and language: A systematic review. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 2017.
  52. Archibald, L.(2017). SLP-Educator classroom collaboration: A review to inform reason-based practice. Autism and Developmental Language Impairments, 2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2396941516680369
  53. McCartney, E., et al., Indirect language therapy for children with persistent language impairment in mainstream primary schools: outcomes from a cohort intervention. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 2011. 46(1), 74-82.
  54. Mecrow, C., J. Beckwith, and T. Klee, An exploratory trial of the effectiveness of an enhanced consultative approach to delivering speech and language intervention in schools. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 2010. 45(3): p. 354-367. DOI: 10.3109/13682820903560302
  55. Tallal, P. (2000). Experimental studies of language learning impairments: From research to remediation. In D. V. M. Bishop & L. B. Leonard (Eds.), Speech and Language Impairments in Children: Causes, Characteristics, Intervention and Outcome (pp. 131–155). Hove, UK: Psychology Press.
  56. Strong, G. K., Torgerson, C. J., Torgerson, D., & Hulme, C. (2010). A systematic meta-analytic review of evidence for the effectiveness of the ‘Fast ForWord’ language intervention program. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 52(3), 224-235. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02329.x
  57. Law, J., Garrett, Z., & Nye, C. (2004). The efficacy of treatment for children with developmental speech and language delay/disorder: a meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 924-943 doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2004/069) PMID 15324296.
  58. Boyle, J., McCartney, E., O'Hare, A., & Law, J. (2010). Intervention for mixed receptive-expressive language impairment: a review. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 52(11), 994-999. doi:10.1111/j.1469-8749.2010.03750.x
  59. Ebbels, S.H.(2014). Effectiveness of intervention for grammar in school-aged children with primary language impairments: A review of the evidence. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(1), 7-40.
  60. Ebbels, S.H., et al., Improving comprehension in adolescents with severe receptive language impairments: a randomised control trial of intervention for coordinating conjunctions. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 2014. 49(1): p. 30-48.
  61. Ebbels, S.H. et al.(2017). Effectiveness of 1:1 speech and language therapy for older children with (developmental) language disorder. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 52(4), 528-539 DOI: 10.1111/1460-6984.12297
  62. Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 45, 1142-1157.
  63. Snowling, M. J., Adams, J. W., Bishop, D. V. M., & Stothard, S. E. (2001). Educational attainments of school-leavers with a pre-school history of speech-language impairments. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 36, 173-183.
  64. Simkin, Z., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2006). Evidence of reading difficulty in subgroups of children with specific language impairment. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 22, 315-331.
  65. Botting, N. (2005). Non-verbal cognitive development and language impairment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46(3), 317-326. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00355.x
  66. Cohen, Nancy (2001). Language impairment and psychopathology in infants, children, and adolescents. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications. ISBN 0-7619-2025-0. OCLC 45749780.
  67. Conti-Ramsden, G., & Botting, N. (2004). Social difficulties and victimization in children with SLI at 11 years of age. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 145-161.
  68. Clegg, J., Hollis, C., Mawhood, L., & Rutter, M. (2005). Developmental language disorders - a follow-up in later life. Cognitive, language and psychosocial outcomes. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 46, 128-149.
  69. Snowling, M. J., Bishop, D. V. M., Stothard, S. E., Chipchase, B., & Kaplan, C. (2006). Psychosocial outcomes at 15 years of children with a preschool history of speech-language impairment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 47, 759-765.
  70. Tomblin, J. B., Records, N. L., Buckwalter, P., Zhang, X., Smith, E., & O'Brien, M. (1997). Prevalence of specific language impairment in kindergarten children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 40(6), 1245-1260.
  71. Bishop, D. V. M. (1997). Uncommon Understanding: Development and Disorders of Language Comprehension in Children. Hove: Psychology Press.
  72. Tallal, P., & Piercy, M. (1973). Defects of non-verbal auditory perception in children with developmental dysphasia. Nature, 241, 468-469.
  73. Rice, M. L., Wexler, K., & Cleave, P. L. (1995). Specific language impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 850-863.
  74. Van der Lely, H. K. J. (2005). Domain-specific cognitive systems: insight from Grammatical-SLI. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 9, 53-59.
  75. Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1990). Phonological memory deficits in language disordered children: is there a causal connection? Journal of Memory and Language, 29, 336-360.
  76. Ullman, M. T., & Pierpont, E. I. (2005). language impairment is not specific to language: The procedural deficit hypothesis. Cortex, 41, 399-433.
  77. Bishop, D. V. M. (2006). Developmental cognitive genetics: How psychology can inform genetics and vice versa. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59, 1153-1168.

Further reading
  • Beitchman, J. H., & Brownlie, E. B. (2014). Language Disorders in Children and Adolescents Boston: Hogrefe. ISBN 9780889373389
  • Paul, Rhea (2007). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence: assessment & intervention. Mosby Elsevier. ISBN 0-323-03685-6. OCLC 487807750.
This article is issued from Wikipedia. The text is licensed under Creative Commons - Attribution - Sharealike. Additional terms may apply for the media files.