Explaining Reading Comprehension in Children With Developmental Language Disorder: The Importance of Elaborative Inferencing

Abstract

Purpose Reading comprehension is a key indicator of academic and psychosocial outcomes. Children with developmental language disorder (DLD) tend to find reading comprehension challenging. This study aimed to explore the literal and inferential (cohesive, elaborative, and lexical) comprehension of children with DLD, their typically developing (TD) peers, and, uniquely, a group of children with low language (LL) proficiency. Method Children aged 10–11 years with either typical development ( n = 16), LL proficiency ( n = 14), or DLD ( n = 14) were recruited from 8 primary schools. They completed a battery of standardized language and literacy assessments. Responses to literal and inferential questions on the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test–Second UK Edition (Wechsler, 2005) were analyzed. Results A disproportionate difficulty in answering inferential relative to literal questions was found for the DLD group compared to the LL and TD groups. Children with DLD were significantly poorer at elaborative inferencing than both their peers with LL proficiency and TD peers, but there were no group differences in cohesive or lexical inferencing. There was a significant positive association between inferencing ability and vocabulary knowledge, single word reading accuracy, grammatical skill, and verbal working memory. The importance of single word reading accuracy was especially evident as a partial mediator of the relationship between vocabulary knowledge and inferencing ability. Conclusions These results indicate that interventions targeting the reading comprehension of children with DLD should focus on elaborative inferencing skill. There are also clinical implications as the development of new standardized assessments differentiating between inference types is called for.

Predictors of school concern across the transition to secondary school with developmental language disorder and low language ability: A longitudinal developmental cascade analysis

“…Given that students with LL have a similar risk of negative outcomes due to language impairment as their TD peers (cf. Conti‐Ramsden et al., 2017; Gough Kenyon et al., 2018), it was hypothesized that their results would be aligned with the results of the DLD group. This hypothesis was supported by the group differences in school concern; pre‐transition the LL group did not significantly differ from either DLD or TD groups, but post‐transition they reported significantly higher concerns than their TD peers, but still aligned (with no significant difference) with their peers with DLD.…”

A systematic review of the academic achievement of primary and secondary school-aged students with developmental language disorder

“…Seven studies used composite measures to evaluate reading achievement over time (Brizzolara et al, 2011; Catts, Bridges, et al, 2008; Catts, Compton, et al, 2012; Coloma et al, 2020; Isoaho et al, 2016; Palikara et al, 2011; Zourou et al, 2010). The remaining seven studies looked cross-sectionally across specific skills of reading comprehension, letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and visual probability with differing results across these types of studies (Blom et al, 2017; Coloma et al, 2015; De Groot et al, 2015; Gough Kenyon et al, 2018; Kouri, 2020; Lammertink et al, 2020; Pedott et al, 2017).…”

Consistency of Parental and Self-Reported Adolescent Wellbeing: Evidence From Developmental Language Disorder

“…No research has been conducted measuring wellbeing in children with LL, yet McKean et al (2017) discuss the limitations arising from the focus on clinically referred samples when so little is known about the impact of low language on functioning and wellbeing. We know that while adolescents with LL are at a similar risk of negative outcomes due to language impairment as their peers with DLD (Conti-Ramsden et al, 2017;Gough Kenyon et al, 2018), their lack of diagnosis means no entitlement to the support that a child with a diagnosis would be entitled to. These adolescents may employ different coping strategies, thus resulting in communication with parents being affected by different factors.…”

“…To explore parental and self report consistency further, a "report agreement" score was created by dividing the parent rating by the adolescent rating (cf. Norbury and Bishop, 2002;Lucas and Norbury, 2015;Gough Kenyon et al, 2018). Thus, a "report agreement" score of 1 would reflect complete agreement between parent and adolescent rating, without differences in scores being skewed by proportional differences.…”