Acknowledgments

Paul, Rhea; Norbury, Courtenay; Gosse, Carolyn

doi:10.1016/b978-0-323-44234-3.00008-7

Cited by 20 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Moreover, some children with DLD may not show difficulties in the early stages of language development. They may begin to have language problems when they start to acquire more advanced language ability and form complex sentences (Paul and Norbury, 2012). Therefore, children with DLD sometimes may not show language deficits until they are 5 or 6 years old.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mean length of utterance among Mandarin-speaking children with and without DLD

2020

Child Language Teaching and Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study explored the differences in mean length of utterance (MLU) and mean length of the five longest utterances (MLU5) between 5–6-year-old Mandarin-speaking children, and between typically developing children and children with developmental language disorders (DLD). Eighty-nine typically developing children and 35 children with a DLD participated in this study. The researchers collected, transcribed, and analysed language samples from these children. MLU and MLU5 were analysed and compared between the groups. The results showed that MLU and MLU5 were significantly higher for 6-year-olds than 5-year-olds. Also, both MLU measures were significantly lower for children with DLD than for typically developing children. The findings demonstrate that MLU and MLU5 can be used to evaluate language ability and to identify children with DLD among Mandarin-speaking children aged 5 and 6 years.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mean length of utterance among Mandarin-speaking children with and without DLD

2020

Child Language Teaching and Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It is, however, possible that a pre-existing hearing condition was present before taking the ototoxic drugs, which may then cause an additional high-frequency hearing loss or exacerbate an existing high-frequency hearing loss. Adequate hearing from birth onwards is essential for language development and later literacy development (Paul & Norbury, 2012 ). The impact of hearing loss on the quality of life is detrimental (Konrad-Martin et al ., 2005 ) and, therefore, should be prevented as far as possible through careful monitoring and management of ototoxic medication.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ototoxicity management: An investigation into doctors’ knowledge and practices, and the roles of audiologists in a tertiary hospital

Wium

Gerber

2016

South African Journal of Communication Disorders

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA significant number of medications that are prescribed by doctors to treat cancers, tuberculosis and infections are ototoxic. Disclosure of ototoxic risks is ethical practice as patients have the right to be properly informed about and involved in decisions about their health care. Often, doctors fail to disclose such information.AimThis research investigated whether a group of doctors working in a South African academic hospital inform their patients about the ototoxic risks associated with specific medications, and if not, explore the reasons for it. It was determined what the participants’ knowledge levels of ototoxicity were as knowledge is seen as a precursor to disclosing information to their patients. A further aim of the research was to determine whether audiologists should expand their role by sharing information with patients and other professionals in the management of ototoxicity and in the hospital.MethodThere were 90 participants included in the study through convenience sampling, which represented interns, medical officers, registrars and consultants in the neonatal intensive care unit, intensive care unit, ear–nose–throat, and internal and family medicine departments. The research made use of a descriptive survey design that collected mainly quantitative data and a limited amount of qualitative data through questionnaires. The data were descriptively analysed, and the qualitative data were listed and quantified.ResultsThe research firstly determined the participants’ knowledge and understanding of ototoxicity, and it was found that there was room for improvement. With reference to the current practices of doctors in the prescription of ototoxic medicines, it was found that disclosure of ototoxic risks was limited, mostly because of a lack of time and insufficient knowledge. In comparing knowledge and practices between levels of employment, it was found that particular post levels performed better than others. The participants regarded the role of the audiologist as team member important, although very few referred their patients for audiological monitoring when they prescribe ototoxic medication.ConclusionA need for additional support to doctors was identified, which indicates that audiologists should expand their role to include the provision of continued professional development activities and to renew their efforts to advocate their role in the hospital so that doctors are made aware of the importance to refer their patients for ototoxic screening and monitoring.

show abstract

“… Source. de Jong and Fletcher (2014); Ebert and Pham (2017); Guiberson and Rodriguez (2013); Karanth et al (2017); Kapantzoglou et al (2015); Krok and Leonard (2015); Lazewnik et al (2019); Mancilla-Martinez et al (2016); Mancilla-Martinez et al (2016); Marinis and Armon-Lotem (2015); Mendez and Simon-Cereijido (2019); Moore and Montgomery (2018); Owens (2020); Paradis et al (2010); Paradis et al (2013); Paradis (2016); Paul et al (2018); Rezzonico et al (2016); Roseberry-McKibbin et al (2019); Pieretti & Roseberry-McKibbin (2016); Spoelman and Bol (2012); Sheng et al (2012); Thordardottir and Brandeker (2013); Wood et al (2018). …”

Section: Gather a Comprehensive Case Historymentioning

confidence: 99%

Utilizing Comprehensive Preassessment Procedures for Differentiating Language Difference From Language Impairment in English Learners

Roseberry-McKibbin

2019

Communication Disorders Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The growing number of English Learners (ELs) in American schools has led to increasing referrals of these students for special education, including speech-language services. These ELs are frequently overidentified as having a language impairment (LI) due to biased assessment practices that are not legal or grounded in research promoting best practices. This article describes a comprehensive preassessment process that should be used with ELs before formal testing takes place. This process consists of four steps: (a) assess language proficiency in all languages, (b) gather a case history with a focus on language development milestones in the first language, (c) interview multiple individuals in the child’s school setting and ascertain whether or not they agree that the student is manifesting any of the universal indicators of LI, and (d) implement a comprehensive response to intervention (RtI) process to determine the student’s ability to profit from instruction. Use of a comprehensive preassessment process will accomplish two objectives: help reduce the overidentification of ELs as having LI and other special needs and promote academic success for these students.

show abstract

Acknowledgments

Cited by 20 publications

References 0 publications

Mean length of utterance among Mandarin-speaking children with and without DLD

Mean length of utterance among Mandarin-speaking children with and without DLD

Ototoxicity management: An investigation into doctors’ knowledge and practices, and the roles of audiologists in a tertiary hospital

Utilizing Comprehensive Preassessment Procedures for Differentiating Language Difference From Language Impairment in English Learners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About