BackgroundDevelopmental language disorder (DLD, also called specific language impairment, SLI) is a common developmental disorder comprising the largest disability group in pre-school-aged children. Approximately 7% of the population is expected to have developmental language difficulties. However, the specific etiological factors leading to DLD are not yet known and even the typical linguistic features appear to vary by language. We present here a project that investigates DLD at multiple levels of analysis and aims to make the reliable prediction and early identification of the difficulties possible. Following the multiple deficit model of developmental disorders, we investigate the DLD phenomenon at the etiological, neural, cognitive, behavioral, and psychosocial levels, in a longitudinal study of preschool children.MethodsIn January 2013, we launched the Helsinki Longitudinal SLI study (HelSLI) at the Helsinki University Hospital (http://tiny.cc/HelSLI). We will study 227 children aged 3–6 years with suspected DLD and their 160 typically developing peers. Five subprojects will determine how the child’s psychological characteristics and environment correlate with DLD and how the child’s well-being relates to DLD, the characteristics of DLD in monolingual versus bilingual children, nonlinguistic cognitive correlates of DLD, electrophysiological underpinnings of DLD, and the role of genetic risk factors. Methods include saliva samples, EEG, computerized cognitive tasks, neuropsychological and speech and language assessments, video-observations, and questionnaires.DiscussionThe project aims to increase our understanding of the multiple interactive risk and protective factors that affect the developing heterogeneous cognitive and behavioral profile of DLD, including factors affecting literacy development. This accumulated knowledge will form a heuristic basis for the development of new interventions targeting linguistic and non-linguistic aspects of DLD.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s40359-018-0222-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Effectiveness of individual and group-based neuropsychological interventions on cognitive aspects of dyslexia in young adults was evaluated. Dyslexic adults were randomly assigned into individual intervention ( n = 40), group intervention ( n = 40), or wait-list control group ( n = 40). The interventions focused on cognitive strategy learning, supporting self-esteem, and using psychoeducation. Cognitive performance and symptoms were assessed via psychometric testing and self-report questionnaires at baseline, after the intervention/wait-list control time at 5 months and at 10 months. And, 15 months post intervention long-term status was checked via mailed inquiry. Wait-list control group also received an intervention after the 5-month control period. No significant effects were found in primary self-report outcome measures. Both interventions had a positive effect on a measure of processing speed and attention and the effect remained after the 5-month follow-up period. In self-reported cognitive symptoms, a positive trend was evident in self-reported reading habits. Furthermore, minor self-evaluated benefits reaching up to 15 months post intervention were found. There were no significant differences between the results of individual and group intervention as both interventions improved cognitive performance. The results indicate that a structured neuropsychological intervention could be effective in ameliorating dyslexia-related cognitive symptoms in young adults.

Objective: To evaluate, in a clinical sample of children with a diagnosis of specific language impairment (SLI), the health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Subjects and Methods: Fifty-five children, aged 8–11 years, filled out a generic HRQoL questionnaire, 17D, and another questionnaire about school and rehabilitation. The HRQoL comparison group was a sample of 244 typically developing schoolchildren. Results: Response rate was 86%. Of the respondents, 80% were male. The total 17D score of the subjects did not differ from that of controls. The 17D profiles of the groups differed on several dimensions, but significant differences emerged only on the dimensions concerning speech, where the study group was worse off, and sleep, where the controls reported more problems. Respondents with low verbal IQ reported more distress. The vast majority of respondents were in special education or received extra educational support and one-third were still having speech therapy. Conclusion: In this clinical sample, despite the persisting need for extra support, the overall well-being of children with SLI was at age level. Still, some differences existed, and HRQoL measurement may prove a good tool for professionals to find those children with SLI at risk for diminished well-being and for later problems.

No abstract