Which Preschool Children With Specific Language Impairment Receive Language Intervention?

Wittke, Kacie; Spaulding, Tammie J.

doi:10.1044/2017_lshss-17-0024

Cited by 32 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 70 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This scale is widely used to screen for ADHD, diagnose ADHD, and evaluate treatments of ADHD. The scale includes four forms, a child form (ages 5-10) and an adolescent form (ages [11][12][13][14][15][16][17] for both the home version, which is completed by parents, and the school version, which is completed by teachers. The rating scale items are based on the diagnostic and DSM-5 criteria for ADHD.…”

Section: Consideration Of Additional Standardized Rating Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This was particularly troublesome for language impairments given their relatively high prevalence rates, as confirmed by epidemiological study samples, and yet low levels of identification. [13][14][15][16][17] In addition, all five standardized rating scales reviewed included several items in their inventories that could be characterized as either symptomatic of a primary language impairment or representative of a secondary academic consequence (e.g., "Can't talk"; "Doesn't speak clearly"; "Has trouble following directions"; "Difficulty doing homework"). These items typically loaded onto ADHD, Social Problems, or Immaturity subscales across these clinical instruments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Redmond (2002) Revisited: Have Standardized Behavioral Rating Scales Gotten Better at Accommodating for Overlapping Symptoms with Language Impairment?

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Seventeen years ago, Redmond reviewed five standardized behavioral rating scales and identified several aspects of their design that made them prone to mischaracterize language impairments as socioemotional behavioral disorders. The purpose of this report is to provide an update and extension of the original audit. We consulted test manuals to evaluate: (1) representation of children with language impairments in their standardization samples; (2) presence of language, or academic items within their inventories; (3) accommodations for administering the measure to children with language impairments; and (4) procedures for identifying inordinately punitive ratings. Overlapping language and academic symptoms continued to be a problem across current behavioral rating scales. Improvements since Redmond occurred in the representation of children with language impairments in standardization samples and in procedures for identifying inordinately punitive ratings. We discuss implications for clinical assessment, research programs, and instrument development.

show abstract

Section: Consideration Of Additional Standardized Rating Scalesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Redmond (2002) Revisited: Have Standardized Behavioral Rating Scales Gotten Better at Accommodating for Overlapping Symptoms with Language Impairment?

2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In this context, recent research shows promising therapeutic approaches like, for example, grammar training (Smith-Lock, Leitano, Lambert, & Nickels, 2013;Smith-Lock, Leitãno, Lambert, et al, 2013), specific read-aloud techniques (Justice, Logan, & Kaderavek, 2017), or metacognitive and metalinguistic training (Schiff, Nuri Ben-Shushan, & Ben-Artzi, 2017). Furthermore, it was shown that higher education of parents as well as more adequate judgment of executive functions in children by teachers increases the chance that children with SLI receive therapy (Wittke & Spaulding, 2018).…”

Section: Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluating Part V of the German version of the Token Test as a screening of specific language impairment in preschoolers

Schmoeger

Deckert

Eisenwort

et al. 2019

Applied Psycholinguistics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Specific language impairment (SLI) is a very common childhood disorder that is characterized by impairments in expressive and/or receptive language regarding different modalities. Part V of the German version of the Token Test was evaluated as a potential screening tool for the early detection of SLI. Forty-five male and 16 female monolingual native German-speaking preschoolers with SLI (4–6 years) and 61 age- and gender-matched typically developing controls were examined with a German version of the Token Test and an established intelligence measure. Token Test performance was significantly worse in preschoolers with SLI including greater group differences at age 4 than at ages 5 and 6. Analyses showed a detection rate of 77% for Part V of the Token Test in the whole sample as well as 85.1% at age 4, 80.6% at age 5, and a nonsignificant detection at age 6. Correctly detected preschoolers with SLI showed significantly worse performance than typically developing controls regarding nonverbal and verbal intelligence, numeracy, problem solving, working memory, visual attention, and memory. Children with SLI show worse Token Test performance, whereas at ages 4 and 5, Part V of the Token Test could potentially serve as a screening tool for the detection of SLI.

show abstract

“…Receipt of services criteria represents one way of recognizing the contributions of social values to the perceived urgency of addressing different clinical symptoms (see Tomblin, 2006). However, as the results of Morgan et al (2015, 2016), Sciberras et al (2014), Wittke and Spaulding (2018), and Zhang and Tomblin (2000) demonstrate, receipt of services appears to be associated with troublesome inequalities in access. Reproducibility and generalizability of receipt of services as the standard for language impairment status is limited further by the presence of variability in diagnostic and eligibility criteria across clinical settings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

“…Although a prevalence rate of 7%–8% suggests that the average classroom will contain two students with a profile characteristic of SLI, evidence available on the issue indicates that only a minority of children with SLI will receive services to address their limitations and that ascertainment biases within preschool and school-age services are probably systemic. Factors shown to increase the likelihood of receipt of school-based language services after controlling for the severity of children's language impairments include male sex, White race, mothers with postsecondary education, and the presence of concomitant conditions such as speech sound disorder and attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Morgan et al, 2015, 2016; Sciberras et al, 2014; Wittke & Spaulding, 2018; Zhang & Tomblin, 2000). Increasing identification rates of children from different backgrounds without concomitant conditions will likely require adoption of school-based screeners targeting language impairments.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Diagnostic Accuracy of Sentence Recall and Past Tense Measures for Identifying Children's Language Impairments

Redmond

Ash

Christopulos

et al. 2019

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Measures of linguistic processing and grammatical proficiency represent strong candidates for adaptation into language screeners for early elementary students. One key barrier, however, has been the lack of consensus around the preferred reference standard for assigning affected status. Diagnostic accuracies associated with sentence recall and past tense marking index measures were examined relative to 5 different reference standards of language impairment: receipt of language services, clinically significant levels of parental concern, low performance on language measures, a composite requiring at least 2 of these indicators, and a composite requiring convergence across all indicators. Method One thousand sixty grade K–3 students participated in school-based language screenings. All students who failed the screenings and a random sampling of those who passed were invited to participate in confirmatory assessments. The community-based sample was supplemented by a clinical sample of 58 students receiving services for language impairment. Two hundred fifty-four students participated in confirmatory testing. Examiners were naive to participants' status. Results Diagnostic accuracies for the sentence recall and past tense marking index measures varied across the different reference standards (areas under receiver operating characteristic curves: .67–.95). Higher levels of convergence occurred with reference standards based on behavioral measures. When affected status was defined by receipt of services and/or parental ratings, cases presented with higher levels of performance on the language measures than when affected status was based on behavioral criteria. Conclusion These results provide additional support for the adaptation of sentence recall and past tense marking to screen for language impairments in early elementary students. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.8285786

show abstract

Which Preschool Children With Specific Language Impairment Receive Language Intervention?

Cited by 32 publications

References 70 publications

Redmond (2002) Revisited: Have Standardized Behavioral Rating Scales Gotten Better at Accommodating for Overlapping Symptoms with Language Impairment?

Redmond (2002) Revisited: Have Standardized Behavioral Rating Scales Gotten Better at Accommodating for Overlapping Symptoms with Language Impairment?

Evaluating Part V of the German version of the Token Test as a screening of specific language impairment in preschoolers

Diagnostic Accuracy of Sentence Recall and Past Tense Measures for Identifying Children's Language Impairments

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About