Modeling Developmental Language Difficulties From School Entry Into Adulthood: Literacy, Mental Health, and Employment Outcomes

Law, James; Rush, Robert; Schoon, Ingrid; Parsons, Samantha

doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0142)

Cited by 307 publications

(257 citation statements)

References 36 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

239

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…14 Behavior problems and impaired psychosocial adjustment associated with speech and language may also persist into adulthood. [15][16][17] Identifying speech and language problems before children enter school can foster initiation of early interventions before these problems interfere with formal education and behavioral adjustment. AAP clinical guidelines recommend that pediatric health care providers perform surveillance at every well-child visit for children ,36 months of age; should concerns arise, screening should be administered using standardized developmental tools.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for Speech and Language Delay in Children 5 Years Old and Younger: A Systematic Review

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: No recommendation exists for or against routine use of brief, formal screening instruments in primary care to detect speech and language delay in children through 5 years of age. This review aimed to update the evidence on screening and treating children for speech and language since the 2006 US Preventive Services Task Force systematic review.METHODS: Medline, the Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ClinicalTrials.gov, and reference lists. We included studies reporting diagnostic accuracy of screening tools and randomized controlled trials reporting benefits and harms of treatment of speech and language. Two independent reviewers extracted data, checked accuracy, and assigned quality ratings using predefined criteria. RESULTS:We found no evidence for the impact of screening on speech and language outcomes. In 23 studies evaluating the accuracy of screening tools, sensitivity ranged between 50% and 94%, and specificity ranged between 45% and 96%. Twelve treatment studies improved various outcomes in language, articulation, and stuttering; little evidence emerged for interventions improving other outcomes or for adverse effects of treatment. Risk factors associated with speech and language delay were male gender, family history, and low parental education. A limitation of this review is the lack of well-designed, well-conducted studies addressing whether screening for speech and language delay or disorders improves outcomes.CONCLUSIONS: Several screening tools can accurately identify children for diagnostic evaluations and interventions, but evidence is inadequate regarding applicability in primary care settings. Some treatments for young children identified with speech and language delays and disorders may be effective.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Screening for Speech and Language Delay in Children 5 Years Old and Younger: A Systematic Review

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…All children were raised as monolingual German speakers and were typically developing as stated by pediatricians and measured with a standardized test of global development (Entwicklungstest f€ ur Kinder von 6 Monaten bis 6 Jahren [ET 6-6; Developmental test for children between 6 months and 6 years]; Petermann, Stein, & Macha, 2008). Recruitment strategy emphasized families in which a sibling or one of the parents had a history of language impairment, thus posing an increased likelihood for language delay in the children (Law et al, 2009). All data were collected from August 2012 through June 2014.…”

Section: Participantsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Language is a key predictor of academic achievement and mental health (Law, Rush, Schoon, & Parsons, 2009). Most children reach language proficiency in at least one language, but 15%-20% of 2-to 3-year-old children have significant language delays that are not associated with a genetic syndrome, hearing impairments, or a neurological or emotional disorder (Horwitz et al, 2003;Reilly et al, 2007).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

In Infants' Hands: Identification of Preverbal Infants at Risk for Primary Language Delay

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early identification of primary language delay is crucial to implement effective prevention programs. Available screening instruments are based on parents' reports and have only insufficient predictive validity. This study employed observational measures of preverbal infants' gestural communication to test its predictive validity for identifying later language delays. Pointing behavior of fifty-nine 12-month-old infants was analyzed and related to their language skills 1 year later. Results confirm predictive validity of preverbal communication for language skills with the hand shape of pointing being superior compared to the underlying motives for pointing (imperative vs. declarative). Twelve-month-olds who pointed only with their open hand but never with their index finger were at risk for primary language delay at 2 years of age.

show abstract

“…1,2 Indeed, language and cognitive development have been picked out as key "life-chance" indicators at 3 years of age. 3 Developing effective interventions is therefore a priority.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-Year Outcomes of a Population-Based Intervention for Preschool Language Delay: An RCT

et al. 2015

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE: We have previously shown short-term benefits to phonology, letter knowledge, and possibly expressive language from systematically ascertaining language delay at age 4 years followed by the Language for Learning intervention. Here, we report the trial's definitive 6-year outcomes.METHODS: Randomized trial nested in a population-based ascertainment. Children with language scores .1.25 SD below the mean at age 4 were randomized, with intervention children receiving 18 1-hour home-based therapy sessions. Primary outcome was receptive/expressive language. Secondary outcomes were phonological, receptive vocabulary, literacy, and narrative skills; parent-reported pragmatic language, behavior, and health-related quality of life; costs of intervention; and health service use. For intention-to-treat analyses, trial arms were compared using linear regression models.RESULTS: Of 1464 children assessed at age 4, 266 were eligible and 200 randomized; 90% and 82% of intervention and control children were retained respectively. By age 6, mean language scores had normalized, but there was little evidence of a treatment effect for receptive (adjusted mean difference 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.2 to 5.7; P = .20) or expressive (0.8; 95% CI -1.6 to 3.2; P = .49) language. Of the secondary outcomes, only phonological awareness skills (effect size 0.36; 95% CI 0.08-0.65; P = .01) showed benefit. Costs were higher for intervention families (mean difference AU $4276; 95% CI: $3424 to $5128).CONCLUSIONS: Population-based intervention targeting 4-year-old language delay was feasible but did not have lasting impacts on language, possibly reflecting resolution in both groups. Long-term literacy benefits remain possible but must be weighed against its cost.

show abstract

Modeling Developmental Language Difficulties From School Entry Into Adulthood: Literacy, Mental Health, and Employment Outcomes

Cited by 307 publications

References 36 publications

Screening for Speech and Language Delay in Children 5 Years Old and Younger: A Systematic Review

Screening for Speech and Language Delay in Children 5 Years Old and Younger: A Systematic Review

In Infants' Hands: Identification of Preverbal Infants at Risk for Primary Language Delay

Two-Year Outcomes of a Population-Based Intervention for Preschool Language Delay: An RCT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About