Shifting and switching from Spanish to English

5.png

In the US, children who speak Spanish at home often begin learning English when they start school, and their dominant language shifts from Spanish to English over time. To get a better idea of how this happens, the authors of this study looked at the change in grammatical accuracy (percent grammatical utterances or PGU*) in Spanish and English narrative retells from kindergarten to second grade.  

As expected, children’s PGU in English went up over time, while PGU in Spanish went down. The researchers compared children in bilingual (English–Spanish) vs. English-only classrooms. For children in bilingual classrooms, the decrease in Spanish PGU was slower, but the increase in English PGU was slightly slower also.  

The researchers also looked at a subgroup of the children who had lower PGU in Spanish at the outset. They called this group “low grammaticality” because they didn’t have enough measures to confidently diagnose developmental language disorder (DLD). Children in this group showed a different pattern, with Spanish PGU holding steady for those in bilingual classrooms, suggesting that they benefited from bilingual teaching.

For a brief time (around age 8), English and Spanish PGU scores for the low grammaticality group looked similar to the rest of the children, which means that if we assessed them at this point, we might not be able to tell who does and doesn’t have DLD. The authors encourage us to assess children in their home language early on, before this shift happens.

So as if assessing English language learners wasn’t hard enough, we also need to consider the type of instruction children are getting and their skills in each language over time.  Ideally, we’d assess children in their home language right when they start school. When that’s not possible, dynamic assessment might help us to differentiate language disorders from normal language dominance shifting during the early school years. For other resources on diagnosing DLD in English language learners, see reviews here, here, and here.

 

*Remember that higher PGU means more accurate use of grammar.

Castilla-Earls, A., Francis, D., Iglesias, A., & Davidson, K. (2019). The impact of the Spanish-to-English proficiency shift on the grammaticality of English learners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0324.

Differences in how teachers and SLPs see DLD

Teachers and SLPs* are supposed to collaborate to support children with developmental language disorder (DLD). Right?! Yet, it seems to infrequently happen successfully. This paper helps us identify why by capturing similarities and differences in how our fields view and support DLD.

Some highlights:

  1. SLPs conceptualize DLD as a language learning impairment; teachers more commonly label it as a learning disability.

  2. SLPs assess DLD in order to identify what areas of language are a weakness, with plans to directly target those language areas, and quantify outcomes based on language performance. However, teachers assess in order to guide classroom instruction, with plans to change the classroom environment, and measure educational achievement.

  3. SLPs tend to prescribe intervention that is added on to classroom instruction, whereas teachers are looking at how they can tailor instruction within the classroom curriculum.

  4. SLPs tend to value language as a critical skill in and of itself, whereas teachers don’t tend to conceptualize language in isolation. Instead, their focus is overall educational achievement (and of course they recognize that language skills are embedded within that, but they don’t usually think of language as a target).

7.png

Overall, this paper is a really good exercise in perspective-taking for SLPs. It highlights fundamental differences in how speech–language professionals and teachers are taught, what their research literature focuses on, and how their practice mindsets can be very different. And understanding all this could be really useful in framing discussions on inter-professional collaboration.

 

*SLTs in the UK; this is an Irish paper

Gallagher, A.L., Murphy, C-.A.,  Conway, P., Perry, A. (2019). Consequential differences in perspectives and practices concerning children with developmental language disorders: an integrative review. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12469.

And more...

Esmaeeli et al. found that family history is the biggest predictor of reading disorders in children at the end of second grade, but emergent literacy and oral language skills also played a role. As SLPs, we should always be taking family history into account when screening or testing for reading disorders.

Two studies this month looked at standardized language tests for Spanish–English bilingual children. Fitton et al. studied the sentence repetition task from the Bilingual English–Spanish Assessment (BESA) and found that it was a valid measure of morphosyntax in both Spanish and English. Wood & Schatschneider studied the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4) and found that it was biased against Spanish–English dual language learners (see also this review).

Méndez & Simon-Cereijido looked at Spanish–English bilingual preschoolers with developmental language disorder* (DLD) and found that children with better Spanish vocabulary skills also had better English grammar skills. They suggest targeting vocabulary in students’ home language to support English learning.

In a survey of nearly 3000 children, Reinhartsen et al. found that children with autism are significantly more likely to have higher expressive language skills than receptive. Children with this profile tended to have more severe delays and more significantly impaired language overall compared to children without this profile.

Rudolph et al. studied the diagnostic accuracy of finite verb morphology composite (FVMC) scores. Unlike previous studies, they found that FVMC wasn’t good at identifying 6-year-olds with developmental language disorder (DLD). The difference might be due to a larger, more representative sample of children. (NOTE: “The FVMC is derived from a spontaneous language sample, in either a free-play or elicited narrative scenario, and reflects the percent occurrence in obligatory contexts of eight T/A morphemes: regular past tense –ed, 3S, and present tense uncontracted and contracted copula and auxiliary BE forms (am, is, are).” ~Rudolph et al., 2019)

Verschuur et al. studied two types of parent training in Pivotal Response Treatment (PRT), finding that both group and individual training improved parents’ ability to create communication opportunities and increased children’s initiations. Furthermore, group training had additional benefits for parents’ stress levels and feelings of self-efficacy. The authors suggest that combining group and individual sessions might be a good way to build parents’ skills while conserving resources.

Venker et al. surveyed SLPs about their use of telegraphic speech. The vast majority of SLPs reported using telegraphic input for commenting on play, prompting for verbal imitations, and giving directions. However, only 18% of SLPs reported that they felt telegraphic speech is useful, which doesn’t make much sense! More research is needed to help align SLP practices and perspectives for use of telegraphic input. (Editors’ note = Perhaps it’s just a habit that’s hard to break? Even culturally influenced?)

 

*Note: The children in this study were those with Specific Language Impairment (SLI), which refers to children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) and normal nonverbal intelligence. We use DLD throughout our website for consistency purposes (read more here).

 

Esmaeeli, Z., Kyle, F.E., & Lundetræ, K. (2019). Contribution of family risk, emergent literacy and environmental protective factors in children’s reading difficulties at the end of second-grade. Reading and Writing. doi:10.1007/s11145-019-09948-5.

Fitton, L., Hoge, R., Petscher, Y., & Wood, C. (2019). Psychometric evaluation of the Bilingual English-Spanish Assessment sentence repetition task for clinical decision making. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi:10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-1

Méndez, L. I., & Simon-Cereijido, G. (2019). A view of the lexical-grammatical link in young latinos with specific language impairment using language-specific and conceptual measures. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi:10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0315

Reinhartsen, D.B., Tapia, A.L., Watson, L., Crais, E., Bradley, C., Fairchild, J., Herring, A.H., & Daniels, J. (2019). Expressive dominant versus receptive dominant language patterns in young children: Findings from the study to explore early development. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. doi:10.1007/s10803-019-03999-x

Rudolph, J. M., Dollaghan, C. A., & Crotteau, S. (2019). Finite verb morphology composite: Values from a community sample. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi:10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0437 

Venker, C.E., Yasick, M., & McDaniel, J. (2019). Using telegraphic input with children with language delays: A survey of speech-language pathologists’ practices and perspectives. American Journal of Speech–Language Pathology. doi:10.1044/2018_AJSLP-18-0140

Verschuur, R., Huskens, B. & Didden, R. (2019). Effectiveness of Parent Education in Pivotal Response Treatment on Pivotal and Collateral Responses. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. doi:10.1007/s10803-019-04061-6

Wood, C., & Schatschneider, C. (2019). Item bias: Predictors of accuracy on Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Fourth Edition items for Spanish-English-speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0145  

Teaching grammar to kids with ASD—How explicit should we be?

7.png

We know that the language skills of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) vary… a lot. While some children are impaired across all language domains, others have weaknesses in just a few. For example, one subgroup of children with ASD have a relative weakness in grammar compared to the other domains. For kids with impairments in grammar, it is common practice to use an implicit intervention approach.

Perhaps you use implicit strategies with your clients? Do you show them pictures, model, and provide corrective feedback and recasts (e.g., “That’s right! The dog is running!”)? These are all implicit (you’re basically bombarding the child with correct productions and hoping that it sticks). Sometimes, though, you might feel that implicit isn’t enough. With some of your clients, do you ever find it helpful to explicitly provide the grammatical rule that you’re working on (e.g., we add -ing because it’s an action word)?

The authors of this study wanted to see whether adding an explicit component to intervention would be advantageous for children with ASD*. Seventeen children with ASD (ages 4–10) were taught two novel grammatical forms by either a combined explicit–implicit approach or an implicit-only approach. The combined approach differed in one way—the rule was described to the kids during intervention, which ended up being advantageous. More children learned the rules and used the novel forms during the combined explicit–implicit approach compared to the implicit-only approach.  

So if you’re working with kids with ASD with grammatical weaknesses, should you present the rules during intervention? At this point, it’s worth a try. The authors did question the generalizability of the results because the sample in the study was not very diverse (all subjects were verbal with mild-moderate ASD); so while the explicit component could be helpful for some of your students, it’s important to keep this limitation in mind.

*Got deja vu? We’ve reviewed another study from this lab on explicit grammar intervention before, but that one looked at children with developmental language disorders (DLD).  This study extends those findings to a new population!

 

Bangert, K. J., Halverson, D. M., & Finestack, L. H. (2019). Evaluation of an explicit instructional approach to teach grammatical forms to children with low-symptom severity Autism Spectrum Disorder. American Journal of Speech–Language Pathology. doi:10.1044/2018_AJSLP-18-0016

Rhetorical competence: Anaphors, organizational signals, and refutation cues. Oh my!

If you’re an SLP who works with older elementary children and above, you’re probably already targeting strategies to improve reading comprehension. And you likely already know the differences between narrative texts and expository (informational) texts. But are you targeting rhetorical competence to improve expository text comprehension? Have you... even heard of rhetorical competence (RC)? Don’t panic if this is foreign to you—we’ve got a handy breakdown of some common rhetorical devices, based on this new article.

Screen Shot 2019-05-16 at 11.55.57 AM.png

Anaphors/Connectives:

  • Direct readers to think about an earlier referent in the text

  • e.g. Students are getting hurt because of unsafe playground equipment. A potential solution for this problem

Organizational Signals:

  • Help readers create a mental representation of the main ideas and text structure

  • e.g. “A second issue to consider is…” or “The first reason…

Refutation Cues:

  • Signal to readers that an incorrect belief is being asserted and then refuted

  • Many people think that ____, but actually ____

Now that you’re up to speed, on to the study*. The authors examined (1) how RC develops between 3rd and 6th grades, (2) how RC contributes to comprehension of expository texts, even beyond skills such as decoding and inferencing, and (3) if the relationship between RC and comprehension is moderated by grade level and other reader characteristics. The findings are detailed and dense, so here are the results that you, the practicing SLP, should focus on:

  • All measures of RC were correlated with improved comprehension of expository text. (Strong RC and strong text comprehension tended to go together.)

  • RC contributes to a student’s expository comprehension above and beyond that student’s inferencing skills, decoding ability, prior knowledge, and working memory. This means that the ability to use rhetorical devices makes a unique contribution to comprehension.

  • RC develops slowly over time and was not even complete in the 6th graders included in this study, meaning it is a skill you can target across several grade levels.

Sadly, this study didn’t tackle how to target rhetorical devices. But as the communication expert, you are uniquely positioned to explicitly draw attention to rhetorical devices in text, especially with readers who may already struggle with comprehension. Keep your eyes open for these features in the texts you’re already using, giving you the perfect opportunity to build rhetorical competence!

*Keep in mind, this sample featured typically-developing Spanish students, but there are enough similarities in text structure that the findings apply to English-speaking students as well.

García, J. R., Sánchez, E., Cain, K., & Montoya, J. M. (2019). Cross-sectional study of the contribution of rhetorical competence to children’s expository texts comprehension between third- and sixth-grade. Learning and Individual Differences. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2019.03.005

It’s 10 AM: Do you know where your gym teacher is?

When you hear “cotreatment,” what other professionals spring to mind? OTs? PTs? How about your friendly neighborhood adapted phys ed teacher? In this study, an SLP and an adapted PE teacher (I’m guessing they don’t like to be called APEs?) teamed up to teach concept vocabulary to 10 pre-kindergarteners with Down Syndrome.

Why target vocabulary in gym class? A couple of reasons. One, having physical experiences related to a new word increases the semantic richness of the learning—something that we know helps kids. Two, a branch of developmental theory (dynamic systems theory, if you’re interested!) holds that language and motor skills develop in a coordinated, interconnected way. Plus? Getting up and moving during your vocab lesson is fun!

9.png

Each week, five different concept words were targeted by the SLP only, the adapted PE teacher only, or both in a co-treatment condition. Teaching occurred in 30-minute large group lessons, four days per week for nine weeks total. Check out the article for specifics about what the lessons looked like in each condition—the key thing is that with co-treatment, the kids got to demonstrate receptive understanding of the concepts through a variety of gross motor actions.

Overall, the intervention had a weak effect with only the PE teacher (makes sense, since teaching words isn’t the point of gym), and a medium effect if the SLP was involved. Out of the ten children, four learned more concepts in co-treatment weeks as compared to weeks when the SLP or PE teacher worked alone. The other six did about the same either way. The authors noticed that the kids who learned better in co-treatment were the children with the highest non-verbal intelligence scores and better ability to use effortful control (so, for example, stopping when a grownup says to stop), but more research is needed to draw strong conclusions from those results. Big picture, here? This type of co-treatment, when done thoughtfully and collaboratively, doesn’t hurt and may help some kids. Also, when many of us are trying to get out of the therapy room and treat kids where they are, bringing intervention to gym class makes a lot of sense from a “least restrictive” point of view. And once again… it’s fun!

 

Lund, E., Young, A., & Yarbrough, R. (2019). The Effects of Co-Treatment on Concept Development in Children With Down Syndrome. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 1525740119827264. doi:10.1177/1525740119827264

The kids missing from our caseloads

10.png

Kids with developmental language disorder (DLD) can fly under the radar for years without anyone flagging their language weaknesses, including their parents. Hendricks et al. looked into whether parents of first and second graders (6–9-year-olds) with DLD were concerned about their children’s language skills and whether a quick, whole-class screening could distinguish children with and without DLD accurately.

For the language screening, children heard 16 sentences from the Test for Reception of Grammar (TROG-2) and circled picture responses in a booklet. This method meant that it only took 15–20 minutes to screen each class of kids. Children also completed additional language and reading testing, and their parents filled out a questionnaire.

The researchers found that parents of children with DLD rarely reported concerns about their language skills—although parents of children with DLD were twice as likely to have concerns if their children struggled with reading, too. Also, the quick, whole-class screener showed promise for identifying DLD. At the best cutoff score, 76% of children with DLD were correctly flagged, while 25% of children without DLD were incorrectly flagged. While these values aren’t quite at an acceptable level, the trade-off of spending 20 minutes or fewer to screen an entire class of children means that the screener warrants more research.

In summary, if we wait for parents of children with DLD to raise concerns about their language, we might be waiting too long, and parents of children with DLD and average reading skills are especially unlikely to notice that anything is wrong. Screening all children’s language could help identify them sooner; fortunately, efficient screeners show promise!

 

Hendricks, A. E., Adlof, S. M., Alonzo, C. N., Fox, A. B., & Hogan, T. P. (2019). Identifying children at risk for developmental language disorder using a brief, whole-classroom screen. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0093

AAC carryover: Buy-in is only the beginning

One of the biggest frustrations for clinicians who support AAC are the devices that don’t get used. You know, the ones that sit in the cabinet unless you’re in the room, or the ones that parents ask you not to send home. There are a lot of factors that contribute to this kind of device abandonment (can’t you just picture a lonely device feeling sorry for itself?). We need to understand these factors, so we can focus our work on the key ingredients that will promote AAC device use and help students—and their support teams—be successful.  

You won’t be surprised by two of the most common caregiver-related barriers to device success: 

1)    The adults don’t know how to use the device (or, they lack operational competency).

This includes finding words, programming, troubleshooting, and navigating the device settings. Parents and teachers often report that they don’t get enough training in this stuff.

2)    The adults don’t have positive attitudes about the device (or, they lack buy-in).  

Specific aspects of buy-in can include considering the device the child’s voice and believing that it should be available at all times.

These two barriers are important, for sure, but how important? And what else are we missing? This study delved into this issue, focusing on the operational competency and buy-in of parents and teachers of school-aged (3–16 years) children with autism, and whether they related to how frequently the children’s AAC devices were used. The 33 children in the study all used a personally-owned PRC device or the related LAMP Words for Life app as their main method of communication at both home and school. To measure how much devices were used, the researchers analyzed data from PRC’s Realize Language feature across three school days and one weekend. Parent and teacher surveys were used to measure operational competency and buy-in.

The good news? Overall, buy-in and operational competency was high for everyone. The bad news? No one was using devices that much. In this group, teachers reported greater buy-in (or at least answered their surveys that way, but that’s a whole different topic...), but parents and teachers were equally comfortable operating the devices. The devices were used more frequently at school vs. home (over half of the kids didn’t use the devices at home at all). 

15.png

A big grain of salt here: the study looked at really a pretty small window in time (Is one weekend at your house representative of how your family works?), and only one device company—that uses a relatively complex language system—was in the mix. We also don’t know if looking at students with diagnoses other than autism would make a difference. Even so, it’s clear that something’s going on here. We can see that good intentions, valuing the device, and being trained in its use just isn’t enough. It looks like we need a broader conversation about barriers, including the practicalities of incorporating a device into daily activities and routines, especially at home. We definitely need to address operational competency and buy-in, but our families and other stakeholders are likely to need more support than that. The authors remind us to keep communication at the center of the conversation, rather than the technology. After all, the device is only the tool—communication is the point.

 

DeCarlo, J., Bean, A., Lyle, S., & Cargill, L. P. M. (2019). The Relationship Between Operational Competency, Buy-In, and Augmentative and Alternative Communication Use in School-Age Children With Autism. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. doi:10.1044/2018_AJSLP-17-0175

Girls vs. Boys: Communication differences in autism

16.png

If you work with students with autism, chances are you’ve noticed some communication differences between the boys and girls on your caseload. But how do you quantify these differences? Do they impact treatment? Are they even real?

We’ve touched on this topic before, but there isn’t loads of research on it at the moment. This preliminary study by Sturrock et al. takes a deeper dive into examining the language and communication profiles of females and males with autism.

The study explored the language and communication skills of 9–11-year-old children with ASD and IQ scores in the average range*, compared to age and gender matched peers with typical development (TD). Within both groups, female and male performance were examined separately. Note that each of the four groups was relatively small (13 children per group). Overall, though, they found some surprising (and not so surprising) differences among the groups.

The ASD group as a whole scored about the same as the TD group on measures of expressive and receptive language. However, the authors did see a subtle deficit in the ASD group when it came to narrative language tasks (an issue we’ve discussed before).

But what about those gender-related differences? Well, it turns out that within the ASD group, females outperformed males in pragmatic language and semantic language tasks. However, females with ASD still lagged behind matched females with TD. Another interesting difference? Girls in general consistently scored better than boys on “language of emotion” tasks (like listing as many feeling/emotion words as possible in one minute).

So what we do with these preliminary findings? Primarily, this study can help you consider potential areas of strength and weakness to look out for during evaluation and treatment of children with ASD. Young females with ASD may need some pretty high-end support with pragmatic and narrative skills to communicate effectively with peers (and that support may further require careful attention to that child’s social group— hello, individualization!)

Additionally, the authors make the case that by increasing our awareness of the female ASD profile, a historically under-diagnosed and misdiagnosed condition, we may be able to help these girls get identified and get access to services sooner rather than later.

*The authors refer to this as High-Functioning Autism.

 

Sturrock, A., Yau, N., Freed, J., Adams, C. Speaking the same language? A preliminary investigation comparing the language and communication skills of females and males with High-Functioning Autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. doi: 10.1007/s10803-019-03920-6.