Gathercole, Willis, Emslie, and Baddeley (1991) present a reanalysis of some of their earlier data concerned with the relationship between nonword repetition and the development of vocabulary knowledge in young children.In the present article we outline some theoretical differences between ourselves and this group in the interpretation of nonword repetition and discuss how best these differences could be resolved.In a series of articles, Gathercole and her colleagues have argued that phonological memory is a major determinant of the development of vocabulary knowledge in children. The primary evidence for this claim comes from Gathercole and Baddeley (1989), who used a nonword repetition task in a longitudinal study with 104 children, starting when the children were aged between 4 and 5 years. As well as measuring nonword repetition, Gathercole and Baddeley assessed nonverbal intelligence using Raven's Progressive Coloured Matrices, receptive vocabulary skills using the short form of the British Picture Vocabulary Test (BPVS), and reading skills using the British Abilities Scales word reading test.The scores on the nonword repetition test were found to correlate highly with vocabulary scores on the BPVS at the first test (age 4) and a year later (age 5). These relationships were maintained after partialing out the effects of nonverbal intelligence and age. The correlation between repetition performance at age 4 and vocabulary scores at age 5 was also shown to hold up even when, in addition to these other variables, vocabulary at age 4 was partialed out.

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. sample of children aged 2;6-4;0 (n=168), together with language assessments. Permanent repository linkResults: Performance in the typical sample was independent of gender and SES, but was affected by age, item length, and prosodic structure, and was moderately correlated with receptive vocabulary. Performance in the clinic sample was significantly poorer, but revealed similar effects of length and prosody, and similar relations to language measures overall, with some notable exceptions. Test-retest and interrater reliability were high. Conclusions: The PSRep Test is a viable and informative test. It differentiates withinand between 'typical' and 'clinic' samples of children, and reveals some unusual profiles within the clinic sample. These findings lay the foundations for a follow-up study of the clinic sample to investigate the predictive value of the test.

The nature of autistic individuals' abnormalities in the use of personal pronouns has been a topic of considerable speculation but little systematic investigation. We tested groups of CA- and verbal MA-matched autistic and nonautistic mentally retarded children and young adults on a series of tasks that involved the comprehension and use of the personal pronouns "I," "you," and "me." All subjects were able to comprehend these pronouns within the test situations, and there were few instances of pronoun reversal. However, autistic subjects were significantly less likely to employ the pronoun "me" in a visual perspective-taking task (when instead they tended to say: 'I can see the . . .'), and lower ability subjects were more likely to use their own proper names rather than personal pronouns in certain photograph-naming tasks. There were also circumstances in which autistic subjects were less likely than controls to employ the pronoun "you" to refer to the experimenter. A high proportion of these autistic subjects were reported to have current difficulties with personal pronouns in their everyday life, and we discuss some alternative interpretations of the results.

No abstract

Citation: Roy, P. & Chiat, S. (2004). A prosodically controlled word and nonword repetition task for 2-to 4-year-olds: Evidence from typically developing children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(1), pp. 223-234. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2004 This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. An association has been found between nonword repetition and language skills in school-aged children with both typical and atypical language development (Dollaghan & Campbell, 1998; Ellis Weismer et al., 2000;Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990;Montgomery, 2002). This raises the possibility that younger children's repetition performance may be predictive of later language deficits. In order to investigate this possibility, it is important to establish that elicited repetition with very young children is both feasible and informative. PermanentTo this end, a repetition task was designed and carried out with 66 children aged 2-4. The task consisted of 18 words and 18 matched nonwords that were systematically manipulated for length and prosodic structure. In addition, an assessment of receptive vocabulary was administered.The repetition task elicited high levels of response. Total scores as well as word and nonword scores were sensitive to age. Lexical status and item length affected performance regardless of age: words were repeated more accurately than nonwords, and one-syllable items were repeated more accurately than two-syllable items, which were in turn repeated more accurately than three-syllable items. The effect of prosodic structure was also significant. Whole syllable errors were almost exclusive to unstressed syllables, with those preceding stress being most vulnerable. Performance on the repetition task was significantly correlated with performance on the receptive vocabulary test. Since this repetition task was effective in eliciting responses from most of the 2 to 4-year-old participants, tapped developmental change in their repetition skills, and revealed patterns in their performance, it has the potential to identify deficits in very early repetition skills that may be indicative of wider language difficulties. Word and nonword repetition 3A prosodically-controlled word and nonword repetition task for 2-4 year olds: Evidence from typically developing children However, the current high profile of nonword repetition testing is due more to the relationships that have been found between nonword repetition and a range of other language abilities and disabilities. Nonword Repetition and Language Measures