Differences in the Nonword Repetition Performance of Children With and Without Specific Language Impairment: A Meta-Analysis

Estes, Katharine Graf; Evans, Julia L.; Else‐Quest, Nicole M.

doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/015)

Cited by 348 publications

(275 citation statements)

References 62 publications

(165 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

248

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The choice of tasks was largely driven by the literature on language impairments (LI), both congenital and acquired. Children with LIwho tend to fare poorly on tasks of non-word repetition (Graf-Estes et al, 2007) -are also apt to show impairments in a range of other skills (Bishop, 2006). For instance, children with LI show differences from typically developing children in their speed of processing and motor response latency (Miller et al, 2001;Schul et al, 2004), attentional resource capacity/allocation (Marton et al, 2007;Finneran et al, 2009;Montgomery et al, 2008) and auditory or phonemic discrimination and processing (Bishop, 2006;Fox et al, 2011, cf.…”

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…NWR tasks have been used with many clinical populations (Gathercole, 2006;Bishop et al, 2006;Conti-Ramsden et al, 2001;Grant et al, 1997;Laws & Gunn, 2004;Graf-Estes et al, 2007) and across languages (Sahlen et al, 1999;reviewed in Coady & Evans, 2008). However, there is no current consensus about which underlying skills, including sensorimotor skills, contribute to NWR performance, and in what proportion (Coady & Evans, 2008;Snowling et al, 1981Snowling et al, , 1986.…”

Section: Articulating Novel Words: Children's Oromotor Skills Predictmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Articulating Novel Words: Children's Oromotor Skills Predict Nonword Repetition Abilities

Krishnan

Alcock

Mercure³

et al. 2013

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: Pronouncing a novel word for the first time requires the transformation of a newly encoded speech signal into a series of coordinated, exquisitely timed oromotor movements. Individual differences in children's ability to repeat novel nonwords are associated with vocabulary development and later literacy. Nonword repetition (NWR) is often used to test clinical populations. While phonological/auditory memory contributions to learning and pronouncing nonwords have been extensively studied, much less is known about the contribution of children's oromotor skills to this process. Method: Two independent cohorts of children (7-13 years, N = 40, and 6.9-7.7 years, N = 37) were tested on a battery of linguistic and non-linguistic tests, including NWR and oromotor tasks. Results: In both cohorts, individual differences in oromotor control were a significant contributor to NWR abilities; moreover, in an omnibus analysis including experimental and standardized tasks, oromotor control predicted the most unique variance in NWR. Conclusions: Results indicate that nonlinguistic oromotor skills contribute to children's NWR ability, and suggest that important aspects of language learning and consequent language deficits may be rooted in the ability to perform complex sensorimotor transformations.Oromotor skill predicts non-word repetition ability

show abstract

Section: The Present Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Articulating Novel Words: Children's Oromotor Skills Predictmentioning

confidence: 99%

Articulating Novel Words: Children's Oromotor Skills Predict Nonword Repetition Abilities

Krishnan

Alcock

Mercure³

et al. 2013

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Children with SLI are typically able to repeat short nonwords accurately; however, their performance decays with nonwords of three or more syllables, suggesting that the difficulty is in holding novel phonological material in memory, rather than in basic aspects of perception and production. Previous studies have suggested that around three-quarters of children with SLI have considerable difficulties with nonword repetition (Conti-Ramsden, Botting, & Faragher, 2001; also see meta-analysis by Graf-Estes, Evans, & Else-Quest, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Further defining the language impairment of autism: Is there a specific language impairment subtype?

Whitehouse

Barry

Bishop

2008

Journal of Communication Disorders

172

138

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some children with autism demonstrate poor nonword repetition-a deficit considered to be a psycholinguistic marker of specific language impairment (SLI). The present study examined whether there is an SLI subtype among children with autism. We compared the language abilities of children with SLI (n = 34, M age = 11;10 S.D. = 2;3), and children with autism with (Apoor, n = 18, M age = 10;11 S.D. = 3;1) and without (Aapp, n = 16, M age = 10;8 S.D. = 2;7) structural language difficulties. Participants were administered battery of standardized language and memory tests. Although there were some similarities in the language profile of the SLI and Apoor groups, the two groups differed on the tests of oromotor ability and verbal short-term memory and showed a different pattern of errors on the nonword repetition task. These findings providing evidence against the idea of an SLI subtype in autism. Further analyses suggested that the nonword repetition deficits experienced by some children with autism may arise when there is substantial impairment in multiple autistic domains.Learning outcomes: Readers will be introduced to (a) the current state of behavioral, cognitive and genetic research that has investigated the relation between SLI and autism, and (b) three hypotheses of why there exists similarity in the language characteristics of children with SLI and autism. Readers will then be taken through a detailed comparison of the language and memory abilities of group of children with each diagnosis. A theoretical model that seeks to explain the relation between these two disorders will be discussed. #

show abstract

“…A meta-analysis by Graf-Estes, Evans and Else-Quest (2007) showed that the effect of LI, which should be maximized for optimal clinical value, is influenced by item properties such as syllable length and wordlikeness or phonotactic probability. Children with LI appear to perform weakly across all nonword lengths, but show greater difficulty with longer items (e.g.…”

Section: Manipulating Properties Of Nwrtsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Quasi-Universal Nonword Repetition Task as a Diagnostic Tool for Bilingual Children Learning Dutch as a Second Language

Boerma

Chiat

Leseman

et al. 2015

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link AbstractPurpose This study evaluated a newly developed quasi-universal nonword repetition task (Q-U NWRT) as a diagnostic tool for bilingual children with language impairment (LI) who have Dutch as a second language. The Q-U NWRT was designed to be minimally influenced by knowledge of one specific language, in contrast to a language-specific (L-S) NWRT to which it was compared.Methods 120 monolingual and bilingual children with and without LI participated (30 per group). A mixed-design ANOVA was used to investigate the effects of LI and bilingualism on the NWRTs. Receiver Operating Characteristic analyses were conducted to evaluate the instruments' diagnostic value.Results Large negative effects of LI were found on both NWRTs, whereas negative effects of bilingualism only occurred on the L-S NWRT. Both instruments had high clinical accuracy in the monolingual group, but only the Q-U NWRT had high clinical accuracy in the bilingual group.Conclusions This study indicates that the Q-U NWRT is a promising diagnostic tool to help identify LI in bilingual children learning Dutch as a second language. The instrument was clinically accurate in both a monolingual and bilingual group of children and seems better able to disentangle language impairment from language disadvantage than more languagespecific measures.3

show abstract

Differences in the Nonword Repetition Performance of Children With and Without Specific Language Impairment: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract: These findings have potential to affect how nonword repetition tasks are used and interpreted, and suggest several directions for future research.

Cited by 348 publications

References 62 publications

Articulating Novel Words: Children's Oromotor Skills Predict Nonword Repetition Abilities

Articulating Novel Words: Children's Oromotor Skills Predict Nonword Repetition Abilities

Further defining the language impairment of autism: Is there a specific language impairment subtype?

A Quasi-Universal Nonword Repetition Task as a Diagnostic Tool for Bilingual Children Learning Dutch as a Second Language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About