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.

Throwback (2012): One way to support your older students with DLD

If you serve students with developmental language disorders (DLD) in middle or high school, you’ve probably grappled with most of these problems: large caseloads, the impossible Tetris-game of scheduling pull-out sessions, a disconnect between therapy and classroom activities, time diverted to supporting missed or misunderstood class assignments, and difficulty connecting with general education teachers to co-plan or co-teach… to name just a few. So how do we navigate these hurdles to make meaningful changes for our students?

Back in 2012, Starling et al. took a novel approach to improving the language skills of a group of middle-grade students* (Australian Year 8, corresponding to the same grade in the U.S.) with language disorders: teaching the students’ teachers to modify their instructional language. This is taking a systemic approach to supporting students by targeting their environment and some of their most impactful communication partners—the ones delivering core academic instruction.

Teacher training addressed a few different areas, focusing on “practical and useable techniques”

  1. Modifying teacher’s written language in worksheets by breaking up large chunks of information, adding visuals, giving descriptions of vocab terms, and putting questions on the same page as the text they refer to.

  2. Modifying oral language by making directions explicit, giving extra processing time, rephrasing/repeating important points, and looking at the class when speaking.

  3. Visual strategies like lesson outlines, mind maps, and anchor charts/posters that the whole class participated in making.

  4. Vocabulary instruction techniques using the 3-tier system, adding extra opportunities to work with new words, and breaking down new words into roots and affixes.

Teachers met weekly individually or in small groups with the SLP for 10 weeks, and the SLP sat in on a few of each teachers’ lessons during that time to monitor how they put the strategies into practice. Click through to the article for specific examples of how lessons were modified based on the coaching process.

(An aside: We hear you, secondary-school SLP friends. This is WAY more access to gen-ed teachers than any of us are likely to have. Despite that, there are probably creative ways to implement something similar in your setting, even if you can’t follow the same schedule. If your school uses Professional Learning Communities, invests in peer coaching, or has other, regularly-occurring chances for professional development, you might be able to squirrel your way right in there! Administrators in charge of professional development stuff love coaching models—that’s how adults often learn best, after all—especially when they aren’t paying for an expensive outside consultant to deliver them.)

8.png

Compared to another school, randomly chosen to wait until the next term for the intervention, trained teachers successfully adopted the new strategies and kept up with them, even after the coaching was ended. Even better, their students with identified language disorders improved in a standardized measure of listening comprehension and written expression compared to the students at the other school, and maintained those gains after three months. Similar improvements didn’t show up in oral expression or reading comprehension, though. The authors acknowledge that this teacher-focused intervention isn’t enough for students with significant language needs—of course it’s not. Many (most… all…) of them will still benefit from individualized instruction in some areas. But this can be one layer in a “comprehensive model of service delivery in supporting secondary students with [language disorders].” And bonus? These kinds of teaching practices have benefits for ALL students, not just the ones with disabilities. If your school or district follows RTI/MTSS or Universal Design for Learning, SLP-delivered teacher coaching fits perfectly with those values.

 

*An important note: English learners were not included in the target student group.

Starling, J., Munro, N., Togher, L., & Arciuli, J. (2012). Training Secondary School Teachers in Instructional Language Modification Techniques to Support Adolescents With Language Impairment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2012/11-0066)

Tutorial Throwback (2014): Am I doing this right? Some under-the-hood tips to structuring language therapy

SLPs have to make LOTS of decisions about how to structure our therapy:

How many minutes do you see each student?

How much time should you spend on a single goal?

What type of activities should you use to target a specific goal?

 The list goes on…

The answer to these questions isn’t always clear (even when you consult the available research), so when an article comes along that tackles these issues, we get pretty excited! This 2014 article by Eisenberg reviewed the research to break down what SLPs need to know about treatment dosage, dose form (type of treatment the student receives), and treatment procedures. Note that the author decided to focus on specific aspects of language therapy rather than any particular packaged approach, which helps us think critically about what’s making a difference in children’s success.

Language and education researchers have borrowed the concept of dose from our friends in medicine. While we might not typically talk about language services in terms of dosage, this analogy actually works really well in helping us think about our therapy and its “active ingredients.”  Imagine a kindergarten student with a goal of using progressive forms who is seen weekly for 30 minutes. In this case, dose would be the number of targets given per session (“Spiderman is swinging” and “Minnie is laughing” would be two), and frequency would be the amount of time the dose is given (30-minute weekly sessions).

We know that children with developmental language disorders (DLD) need a higher dosage than their typically-developing peers to learn new words and new grammatical forms, but just how much more? The article provides some numbers for comparison:

Screen Shot 2019-06-14 at 12.03.46 PM.png

For frequency, it seems that spaced exposure (compared to mass exposure) leads to better learning. So a student receiving a consecutive 60-minute session (mass exposure) may not be benefiting as much as a peer who receives two 30-minute sessions (spaced exposure).

So now we can talk about what the dose (language input) should actually look like. Here are some general guidelines for teaching specific grammatical targets (e.g., passives, bound morphemes). You should:

Vary the surrounding vocabulary

  • Children learn forms better when they’re combined with different vocabulary

  • e.g. The boy was scolded. This cat was licked.

Keep the target consistent across trials

  • Children acquire rules better when exceptions are limited 

  • e.g. She walks. / He runs……….. Instead of: She walks. / I walk.

Speak in grammatical (not telegraphic) sentences

  • There’s no compelling evidence that telegraphic speech improves comprehension

  • Children need grammatical models to produce grammatical forms

  • Children use grammatical knowledge to understand sentences and learn new words

  • e.g. The boy helps his mama…….. Instead of: Help mama.

Finally, for treatment procedures, therapy activities range from least natural (e.g., drills) to most natural (e.g., literacy based interventions or conversation activity). There seems to be a trade-off, with imitation training giving you quicker short-term gains, but activities like recasts being more important for spontaneous productions.

Screen Shot 2019-06-14 at 4.02.07 PM.png

Lots to think about, right? Now, while this information certainly doesn’t answer all our questions, it’s a good framework that can help SLPs think about why something in therapy may (or may not) be working and making meaningful improvements to our sessions.

Looking for more about dose and treatment intensity? Check out our blog post on that topic from 2018.

Eisenberg, S. (2014). What works in therapy: Further thoughts on improving clinical practice for children with language disorders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. doi:10.1044/2014_LSHSS-14-0021

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  

Language deficits in preschoolers born premature: How should we assess?

By now, it’s fairly well known that prematurity is a major risk factor for language delays in toddlerhood and beyond. But what do those language deficits look like and how can we assess them adequately?

This study examines these questions by comparing preschoolers born preterm* with their typically developing, full term counterparts. They examined both groups’ expressive language skills, nonverbal IQ, and attention skills, as well as parental reports of hyperactivity and attention problems.

A standardized language assessment (CELF-Preschool 2) and language sample analysis were used to assess expressive language skills, with some interesting results. The only significant difference in CELF-P2 results was the Recalling Sentences subtest, but every measure of semantic and grammatical skills was significantly lower in the language samples of the preterm group. Attentional difficulties partially explained these skill differences, but not hyperactivity or nonverbal IQ. Keep in mind that these results don’t necessarily match those of previous studies of children born preterm, but the authors of this study do a thorough job of explaining possible reasons for this in the discussion section.

What are the takeaways for evaluating preschoolers born preterm?

  1. Don’t forget the value of standardized sentence recall tasks as an indicator of language disorder.

  2. Language sample analysis is worth taking the time to complete. Structured, standardized language assessments don’t always adequately measure deficits in conversational language skills.

2.png

Check out our previous reviews (there are so many of them!) if you’re feeling stuck on where to begin with language sample analysis. But if you’re involved in research or just curious about the details, be sure to click over to the article for an interesting discussion of which measures the authors chose to use and why.

*before 36 weeks gestation; also, the researchers excluded children with diagnoses that further increased their risk of delays (issues such as chromosomal abnormalities, meningitis, or grade III/IV intraventricular hemorrhage)

 

Imgrund, C. M., Loeb, D. F., & Barlow, S. M. (2019). Expressive Language in Preschoolers Born Preterm: Results of Language Sample Analysis and Standardized Assessment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi:10.1044/2018_jslhr-l-18-0224

What’s driving our clinical decision-making?

We know a lot about what types of assessment tools SLPs tend to use (see here, here, and here, for example), but we don’t know much about how we synthesize and prioritize the information we gather in those assessments to come up with a diagnosis (or lack thereof). How do we reconcile inconsistent results? What factors tend to carry the most weight? How much do outside influences (i.e. policies and caseload issues) affect our decisions? Two different studies this month dive into the minds of SLPs to begin answering these questions.

Fulcher-Rood et al. begin by pointing out that school-based SLPs receive conflicting information on how to assess and diagnose language disorders from our textbooks, our federal/state/local guidelines and policies, and the research. So how do we actually approach this problem in real life? To learn more, they used a pretty cool case study method, where lots of assessment results were available for each of five, real 4–6-year-olds (cognitive and hearing screenings, parent/teacher questionnaires, three different standardized tests and two different language samples, transcribed and analyzed against SALT norms), but the 14 experienced SLPs who participated only saw the results they specifically asked for to help them make their diagnoses. This better reflects actual practice than just giving the SLPs everything upfront, because in school settings you’re for sure not going to have SPELT-3 scores or LSA stats to consider unless you’re purposefully making that happen. The case studies were chosen so that some showed a match between formal and informal results (all within or all below normal limits), whereas some showed a mismatch between formal and informal testing, or overall borderline results. Importantly, SLPs were instructed not to consider the “rules” of where they work when making a diagnosis.

Here were some major findings:

  • Unsurprisingly, when all data pointed in the same direction, SLPs were unanimous in determining that a disorder was or wasn’t present.

  • When there was conflicting information (standard scores pointed one direction, informal measures the other), almost all the SLPs made decisions aligning with the standardized test results.

  • Across cases, almost all the SLPs looked at CELF-P2 and/or PLS-5 scores to help them make a diagnosis, and in most cases they asked for parent/teacher concerns and language sample transcripts as well. A third of the SLPs didn’t ask for LSA at all.

  • Only a few SLPs used SPELT-3 scores, and no one asked for language sample analyses that compared performance to developmental norms.

These results reinforce what we learned in the survey studies linked above: SLPs use a lot of standardized tests, combined with informal measures like parent/teacher reports, and not so much language sampling. What’s troubling here is the under-utilization of tools that have a really good track record at diagnosis language disorders accurately (like the SPELT-3 and LSA measures), as well as over-reliance on standardized test scores that we know can be problematic—even when there’s tons of other information available and time/workplace policies aren’t a factor.

The second study, from Selin et al., tapped into a much bigger group of SLPs (over 500!), to ask a slightly different question:

5.png

Under ideal conditions, where logistical/workplace barriers are removed, how are SLPs approaching clinical decision-making? And what about the children, or the SLPs themselves, influences those decisions? 

Their method was a little different from the first study. SLPs read a paragraph about each case, including standard scores (TOLD-P:4 or CELF-4, PPVT-4, GFTA-2, and nonverbal IQ) and information about symptoms and functional impairments (use of finiteness, MLU, pragmatic issues, etc.). Rather than giving a diagnosis, the SLPs made eligibility decisions—should the child continue to receive services, and if so, in what area(s) and what type of service (direct, consultation, monitoring, etc.)?

The survey method this team used yielded a TON of information, but we’ll share a few highlights:

  • Freed from the constraints of caseloads and time, SLPs recommended continued service more often than we do in real life. We know that workplace policies and huge caseloads can prevent us from using best practices, but it’s helpful to see that play out in the research. It’s not just you!

  • Six cases were specifically set up to reflect the clinical profile of Specific Language Impairment*, but when determining services and goal areas, SLPs choices didn’t consistently align with that profile. So, even when a case was consistent with SLI, services weren’t always recommended, and when they were, the goals didn’t necessarily correspond with the underlying deficits of that disorder. So as a group, our operational knowledge of EBP for language disorders has a lot of room for improvement. Unlike with speech sound disorders, SLPs were not sensitive to clinical symptoms of SLI (tense/agreement errors, decreased MLU) when making eligibility decisions.

  • Yet again, SLPs relied heavily on standardized scores, even when other evidence of impairments was present.  

So what can you do with all this information? First of all, think about what YOU do in your language assessments. What tools do you lean on to guide your decisions, and why? Are you confident that those choices are evidence-based? Second, keep doing what you’re doing right now—learning the research! There is tons of work being done on assessment and diagnosis of language disorders, use of standardized tests, and LSA (hit the links to take a wander through our archives!). Taking a little time here and there to read up can add up to a whole new mindset before you know it.  

*SLI, or developmental language disorder (DLD) with average nonverbal intelligence.

 

Fulcher-Rood, K., Castilla-Earls, A., & Higginbotham, J. (2019). Diagnostic Decisions in Child Language Assessment: Findings From a Case Review Assessment Task. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. doi:10.1044/2019_LSHSS-18-0044

Selin, C. M., Rice, M. L., Girolamo, T., & Wang, C. J. (2019). Speech-Language Pathologists’ Clinical Decision Making for Children With Specific Language Impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. doi:10.1044/2018_LSHSS-18-0017

Better word learning through repeated retrieval

With vocabulary, there’s a tendency to talk about “teaching” and “probing” as two separate things, with too much of the latter getting in the way of the former. But as it turns out, asking your students to recall words you’ve recently taught them can be an important part of teaching. Depending on where you got your SLP training, concepts like “spaced retrieval” may have been part of your curriculum in adult cognitive therapy, but we can apply those same ideas to working with our preschool-aged friends with developmental language disorder (DLD) as well! We know our young clients with DLD struggle to learn new words, and vocabulary deficits can snowball over time, with negative effects on literacy and language, so anything we can do to improve that process is definitely worth knowing about.

In the first of a pair of studies from Leonard, Haebig, and colleagues, the authors taught novel (meaning, invented) words to a group of preschoolers (about age 5) with and without DLD. Half the words were taught with a procedure called repeated retrieval with contextual reinstatement (RRCR), that worked like this:

  1. Learn a new target word (see a picture paired with 3 exposures to the word and a simple definition)

  2. Prompt to recall (retrieve) that word, then hear the name/definition again (study the word)

  3. Learn 3 more words

  4. Retrieve the target word again, then study the word

  5. Learn 3 more words

  6. Retrieve the target word a third time, then study the word

6.png

The “contextual reinstatement” part of RRCR comes from the fact that the attempts to retrieve the word are broken up by exposures to different words (in steps 3 and 5 above). The other half of the words were taught with the same procedure, but without the prompts to recall the word, so at steps 2, 4, and 6, the children just got the additional chances to study the target word.

For children with and without DLD, the repeated retrieval condition resulted in better word learning (about 2.5 more word forms recalled out of 8 in a labeling task, and 1 more definition) both 5 minutes and 1 week after teaching. Note that the same advantage didn’t hold if they were tested using a multiple-choice format (think the PPVT), which is an easier task than naming pictures. An even cooler part of the results? The children with DLD did just as well as the typically-developing kids, with the same number of exposures to the target words.

And how important is that “contextual reinstatement” piece, anyway? That’s the question the second of the two studies examined. They compared a slightly different RRCR protocol with immediate retrieval, where kids needed to recall taught words right after learning them, without other words being presented in between:

  • Immediate retrieval: Learn a word, retrieve and study that word three times, then repeat with two other words. 

  • RRCR: Learn a word, retrieve and study that word once, then repeat with two other words. Then retrieve/study the three words alternately, twice through (1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3). 

Similar to the previous results, the kids were much better at remembering words learned via RRCR. So it’s not just the retrieval aspect that’s important, but needing to retrieve information after thinking about something else in between. So while there’s still more to learn (How many words can you teach at a time via this method? What’s the best retrieval schedule to use?), this is a powerful concept that you can bring to your own intervention.

 

Leonard, L. B., Karpicke, J., Deevy, P., Weber, C., Christ, S., Haebig, E., … Krok, W. (2019). Retrieval-Based Word Learning in Young Typically Developing Children and Children With Developmental Language Disorder I: The Benefits of Repeated Retrieval. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0070

Haebig, E., Leonard, L. B., Deevy, P., Karpicke, J., Christ, S. L., Usler, E., … Weber, C. (2019). Retrieval-Based Word Learning in Young Typically Developing Children and Children With Development Language Disorder II: A Comparison of Retrieval Schedules. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0071

And more...

Recently, we reviewed a study showing that young children with less-developed self-regulation skills needed more time in fluency therapy, and the authors recommended addressing self-regulation concurrently with fluency. But how do you do that? Druker et al. (the team behind that other study) are back with one possible way: training parents to deliver intervention in resilience. Children whose parents received this training reduced emotional and behavioral issues compared to a group who only received fluency therapy. Check out the appendices for examples of the resilience-boosting activities parents were trained to use.  

Ebert et al. studied the relationships among bilingualism, developmental language disorder (DLD), and attention. They found that bilingualism was not related to improved attention (so, no evidence for a hypothesized “bilingual cognitive advantage”), but that DLD was associated with poorer attention skills in both mono- and bilingual children.

Gremp et al. found that children who are DHH have difficulty with nameable visual sequencing tasks (think: the circle handheld Simon game that lights up) compared to hearing peers, which positively predicted receptive vocabulary scores. This highlights the difficulty with both sequencing and describing abstract concepts often experienced by this population. Keep in mind that these were DHH children in primarily spoken English environments, with little-to-no ASL access. The discussion section dives into a deeper discussion of possible causes of these deficits.

Herman et al. examined the literacy skills of oral deaf (OD) children and compared them with another group known to struggle with reading—hearing children with dyslexia. In both groups, letter sound knowledge, phonological skills, and rapid automatic naming abilities were helpful measures for identifying poor readers. Compared with the hearing group, OD children’s skills in phoneme deletion and vocabulary were lower, and also useful for predicting literacy outcomes. The authors discuss implications for literacy assessment and intervention, so check out the full article if you work with this population.

Hessling & Brimo studied the micro- and macrostructure of narrative retells produced by children with Down Syndrome. They describe general patterns of strengths and weaknesses across the children, and found that narrative measures were correlated with both word-level reading and reading comprehension skills. They recommend narrative analysis as a useful assessment and intervention-planning tool for this population.

Nonword repetition is thought to be a non-biased task with high clinical utility for diagnosing language disorders. But if you’re using this task to assess speakers of non-mainstream dialects, McDonald & Oetting suggest you measure the density of non-mainstream forms (through language sampling, an assessment like the DELV, or listener judgments) as part of your assessment, because their new study shows that dialect density can affect nonword repetition scores.

Robinson & Norton examined US national data from 2004–2014 and determined that black American students were disproportionately classified as speech or language impaired in three-quarters of the states. In most cases, these students were over-represented, but some states (those with a larger density of black residents) were likely to under-represent.

 

Druker, K. C., Mazzucchelli, T. G., & Beilby, J. M. (2019). An evaluation of an integrated fluency and resilience program for early developmental stuttering disorders. Journal of Communication Disorders. doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2019.02.002

Ebert, K. D., Rak, D., Slawny, C. M., & Fogg, L. (2019). Attention in Bilingual Children With Developmental Language Disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0221

Gremp, M. A., Deocampo, J. A., Walk, A. M., & Conway, C. M. (2019). Visual sequential processing and language ability in children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Child Language. doi:10.1017/s0305000918000569

Herman, R., E. Kyle, F., & Roy, P. (2019). Literacy and Phonological Skills in Oral Deaf Children and Hearing Children With a History of Dyslexia. Reading Research Quarterly. doi:10.1002/rrq.244

Hessling, A., & Brimo, D. M. (2019). Spoken fictional narrative and literacy skills of children with Down syndrome. Journal of Communication Disorders. doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2019.03.005

McDonald, J. L., & Oetting, J. B. (2019). Nonword Repetition Across Two Dialects of English: Effects of Specific Language Impairment and Nonmainstream Form Density. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0253

Robinson, G. C., & Norton, P. C. (2019). A Decade of Disproportionality: A State-Level Analysis of African American Students Enrolled in the Primary Disability Category of Speech or Language Impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. doi:10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17-0149