Purpose Children with dyslexia often struggle with nonphonological aspects of language and executive functioning. The purpose of this study was to investigate the impact of executive functioning on language abilities at both structural (e.g., grammar in sentences) and functional (e.g., narrative) levels in 92 third- and 4th-grade students with dyslexia. Additionally, we asked if working memory updating contributed a significant amount of variance in narrative language ability beyond what would be expected by students' structural language skills alone. Method Students' language and executive functioning skills were evaluated using a range of language and cognitive measures including the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–Fourth Edition ( Semel, Wiig, & Secord, 2003 ), the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Fourth Edition ( Dunn & Dunn, 2007 ), the Test of Narrative Language ( Gillam & Pearson, 2004 ), the Delis–Kaplan Executive Function Scale ( Kaplan, Kramer, & Delis, 2001 ), and the Corsi Block-Tapping Test (WISC-IV Integrated; Kaplan, Fein, Kramer, Delis, & Morris, 2004 ). Results Low correlations between the language measures suggested that each of these assessments captures a unique element of language ability for children with dyslexia. Hierarchical regression analysis indicated that working memory updating accounted for a significant amount of unique variance in oral narrative production beyond what would be expected by structural language ability. Conclusions The range of performance found across language measures suggests that it may be important to include a variety of language measures assessing both structural and functional language skills when evaluating children with dyslexia. Including cognitive measures of executive functioning may also be key to determine if deficits in working memory updating are contributing to functional expressive language difficulties.

Purpose Early intervention using augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) supports both receptive and expressive language skills. However, many parents and clinicians still worry that augmented language intervention might delay or impair speech development. This study aimed to (a) characterize and analyze the speech sound development of toddlers with developmental delay who participated in a parent-implemented language intervention; (b) examine the accuracy of speech sounds among toddlers who participated in an augmented language intervention using speech-generating devices and toddlers who participated in a traditional, spoken language intervention; and (c) examine the relationship between baseline factors (i.e., receptive and expressive language skills, vocal imitation, and number of unintelligible utterances) and the number of spoken target vocabulary words after intervention. Method This study used extant data from two randomized control trials of parent-implemented language interventions using AAC or spoken language. Out of 109 children who completed the intervention, 45 children produced spoken target vocabulary words at the end of the intervention. We identified and phonetically transcribed spoken target vocabulary words for each child and then classified them based on Shriberg and Kwiatkowski's (1982) developmental sound classes. Results Children's speech sound accuracy was not significantly different across intervention groups. Overall, children who produced more words had more speech sound errors and higher baseline language scores. Intervention group and baseline receptive and expressive language skills significantly predicted the number of spoken target vocabulary words produced at the end of intervention. Conclusions Participation in AAC intervention resulted in significantly more spoken target vocabulary words and no statistically significant differences in speech sound errors when compared to children who received spoken language intervention without AAC. Results support using AAC interventions for very young children without the fear that it will delay speech or spoken language development. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14265365

No abstract

IntroductionYoung children with Down syndrome (DS) present with speech and language impairments very early in childhood. Historically, early language intervention for children with DS included manual signs, though recently there has been an interest in the use of speech-generating devices (SGDs). This paper examines the language and communication performance of young children with DS who participated in parent-implemented communication interventions that included SGDs. Specifically, we compared the functional vocabulary usage and communication interaction skills of children with DS who received augmented communication interventions (AC) that included an SGD with those children with DS who received spoken communication intervention (SC).MethodsTwenty-nine children with DS participated in this secondary data analysis. These children were part of one of two longitudinal RCT studies investigating the effectiveness of parent-implemented augmented communication interventions in a larger sample of 109 children with severe communication and language impairments.ResultsThere were significant differences between children with DS in the AC and SC groups in terms of the number and proportion of functional vocabulary targets used and the total vocabulary targets provided during the intervention at sessions 18 (lab)and 24 (home).DiscussionOverall, the AC interventions provided the children with a way to communicate via an SGD with visual-graphic symbols and speech output, while the children in the SC intervention were focused on producing spoken words. The AC interventions did not hinder the children’s spoken vocabulary development. Augmented communication intervention can facilitate the communication abilities of young children with DS as they are emerging spoken communicators.