On the “Specifics” of Specific Reading Disability and Specific Language Impairment

McArthur, Genevieve; Hogben, John; Edwards, Veronica; Heath, S.; Mengler, Elise D.

doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00674

Cited by 391 publications

(173 citation statements)

References 20 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

152

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…14 This is particularly striking, if we consider that it is not usual practice (in Italy) to evaluate these children grammatical abilities, due in part to the unavailability of norm-referenced language tests for their age. Since DD and SLI often cooccur (McArthur et al 2000;Bishop & Snowling 2004;Catts et al 2005) and children with 14 The fact that children with DD lag behind their CA controls more than children with SLI presumably depends on the different age of the two control groups. In fact the CA controls for SLI are much younger than the CA controls for DD.…”

Section: Discussion For Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A moderate behavioral overlap between SLI and DD has been frequently reported, with a described reciprocal incidence varying between 50% and 60% in the two populations, depending on the study (McArthur et al 2000;Catts et al 2005). Syntactic deficits have been observed in children with DD.…”

Section: Relative Clauses In Children With Ddmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…McArthur et al 2000;Robertson & Joanisse 2010). Extending the comparison of the comprehension of PRCs and ORCs to these children can foster our understanding of the relation between DD and SLI and the description of different DD subtypes (Castles & Coltheart 1993;Ramus et al 2003;Castles, Bates & Coltheart 2006;Friedmann & Lukov 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The comprehension of Italian relative clauses in poor readers and in children with Specific Language Impairment

Arosio

Panzeri

Molteni

et al. 2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) and children with Developmental Dyslexia (DD) have problems comprehending relative clauses (RCs) and find object RCs more difficult than subject RCs, as do typically developing children. Few studies have compared these groups directly, leaving it unclear whether the problems observed in children with DD are similar to those described in SLI. Work with typically developing children has shown that the comprehension of passive RCs is less challenging than that of object RCs. It is argued that this asymmetry depends on intervention effects as modelized in a Relativized Minimality framework. Since movement is challenging for children with SLI and those with DD, examining and comparing their comprehension of object RCs and passive RCs can broaden our understanding of their language deficits. In fact, both structures involve movement, but the moved element and the movement configuration are different.In our study we investigated the comprehension of subject RCs, object RCs and passive RCs in 12 Italian monolingual children with SLI (mean age: 7;6), 13 Italian monolingual children with DD (mean age: 10;7) and 50 typically developing controls matched for age, grammar and vocabulary. Results from a picture selection task show that: (i) subject RCs are unproblematic for all children; (ii) object RCs are challenging for children with SLI, children with DD and younger typically developing controls; (iii) passive RCs are better understood than object RCs in all groups, but still problematic for children with SLI and younger typically developing controls. Our data show that intervention effects are found in children with SLI and children with DD and that those with SLI have a deficit in transferring thematic roles to moved elements. Our results point out that some of the children with DD have a mild grammatical deficit that was undetected or escaped standardized tests.

show abstract

Section: Discussion For Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Relative Clauses In Children With Ddmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The comprehension of Italian relative clauses in poor readers and in children with Specific Language Impairment

Arosio

Panzeri

Molteni

et al. 2017

Glossa: A Journal of General Linguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, it could be that within the group of poor readers, there are some children who would be better characterized as having a broader language impairment. There is a high level of overlap between these groups (McArthur, Hogben, Edwards, Heath, & Mengler, 2000). An alternative explanation is that these children have developed language weaknesses as a result of their limited reading experience due to their literacy difficulties (Stanovich, 1986; Snowling, Duff, Nash, & Hulme, 2015).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Not all phonological awareness deficits are created equal: evidence from a comparison between children with Otitis Media and poor readers

Carroll

Breadmore

2017

Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Children with reading difficulties and children with a history of repeated ear infections (Otitis Media, OM) are both thought to have phonological impairments, but for quite different reasons. This paper examines the profile of phonological and morphological awareness in poor readers and children with OM. Thirty‐three poor readers were compared to individually matched chronological age and reading age controls. Their phonological awareness and morphological awareness skills were consistently at the level of reading age matched controls. Unexpectedly, a significant minority (25%) of the poor readers had some degree of undiagnosed mild or very mild hearing loss. Twenty‐nine children with a history of OM and their matched controls completed the same battery of tasks. They showed relatively small delays in their literacy and showed no impairment in morphological awareness but had phonological awareness scores below the level of reading age matched controls. Further analysis suggested that this weakness in phonological awareness was carried by a specific weakness in segmenting and blending phonemes, with relatively good performance on phoneme manipulation tasks. Results suggest that children with OM show a circumscribed deficit in phoneme segmentation and blending, while poor readers show a broader metalinguistic impairment which is more closely associated with reading difficulties.

show abstract

“…A frequent comorbidity of dyslexia is specific language impairment (SLI). For example, McArthur and colleagues (McArthur, Hogben, Edwards, Heath, & Mengler, 2000) demonstrated that more than 50% of children with SLI were also diagnosed with dyslexia. This strong overlap corroborates the hypothesis of a shared genetic background of reading and language abilities.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

ATP2C2andDYX1C1are putative modulators of dyslexia‐related MMR

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundDyslexia is a specific learning disorder affecting reading and spelling abilities. Its prevalence is ~5% in German‐speaking individuals. Although the etiology of dyslexia largely remains to be determined, comprehensive evidence supports deficient phonological processing as a major contributing factor. An important prerequisite for phonological processing is auditory discrimination and, thus, essential for acquiring reading and spelling skills. The event‐related potential Mismatch Response (MMR) is an indicator for auditory discrimination capabilities with dyslexics showing an altered late component of MMR in response to auditory input.MethodsIn this study, we comprehensively analyzed associations of dyslexia‐specific late MMRs with genetic variants previously reported to be associated with dyslexia‐related phenotypes in multiple studies comprising 25 independent single‐nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) within 10 genes.ResultsFirst, we demonstrated validity of these SNPs for dyslexia in our sample by showing that additional inclusion of a polygenic risk score improved prediction of impaired writing compared with a model that used MMR alone. Secondly, a multifactorial regression analysis was conducted to uncover the subset of the 25 SNPs that is associated with the dyslexia‐specific late component of MMR. In total, four independent SNPs within DYX1C1 and ATP2C2 were found to be associated with MMR stronger than expected from multiple testing. To explore potential pathomechanisms, we annotated these variants with functional data including tissue‐specific expression analysis and eQTLs.ConclusionOur findings corroborate the late component of MMR as a potential endophenotype for dyslexia and support tripartite relationships between dyslexia‐related SNPs, the late component of MMR and dyslexia.

show abstract

On the “Specifics” of Specific Reading Disability and Specific Language Impairment

Cited by 391 publications

References 20 publications

The comprehension of Italian relative clauses in poor readers and in children with Specific Language Impairment

The comprehension of Italian relative clauses in poor readers and in children with Specific Language Impairment

Not all phonological awareness deficits are created equal: evidence from a comparison between children with Otitis Media and poor readers

ATP2C2andDYX1C1are putative modulators of dyslexia‐related MMR

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About