Characterizing the Motor Skills in Children with Specific Language Impairment

Background/Aims: Specific language impairment (SLI) is characterized by deficits in language ability. However, studies have also reported motor impairments in SLI. It has been proposed that the language and motor impairments in SLI share common origins. This exploratory study compared the gross, fine, oral, and speech motor skills of children with SLI and children with typical development (TD) to determine whether children with SLI would exhibit difficulties on particular motor tasks and to inform us about the underlying cognitive deficits in SLI. Methods: A total of 13 children with SLI (aged 8–12 years) and 14 age-matched children with TD were administered the Movement Assessment Battery for Children – Second Edition and the Verbal Motor Production Assessment for Children to examine gross and fine motor skills and oral and speech motor skills, respectively.Results: Children with SLI scored significantly lower on gross, fine, and speech motor tasks relative to children with TD. In particular, children with SLI found movements organized into sequences and movement modifications challenging. On oral motor tasks, however, children with SLI were comparable to children with TD. Conclusion: Impairment of the motor sequencing and adaptation processes may explain the performance of children with SLI on these tasks, which may be suggestive of a procedural memory deficit in SLI

Procedural learning and school-age language outcomes in children with and without a history of late talking

Background 'Late talkers' (LTs) are toddlers with late language emergence that cannot be explained by other impairments. It is difficult to predict which of these children continue to present long-term restrictions in language abilities and will later be identified as having a developmental language disorder. Procedural memory weaknesses have been suggested to underlie developmental language disorders, but have not been investigated in LTs. Aims We investigated the relationships between aspects of procedural memory and school-age language abilities in children with and without a history of LT. We hypothesized that children with a history of LT exhibit (1) restrictions in procedural memory when compared with children with typical early development (TED); and (2) a positive association between procedural memory and school-age language abilities. Methods & Procedures We recruited 79 children (7;5-10;5), 43 of whom had a history of LT. Aspects of procedural memory, procedural learning and motor planning were assessed using the serial reaction time and the end-state comfort tasks. School-age language abilities were measured using standardized tests. Outcomes & Results Counter to expectations, motor planning was not associated with a history of LT or school-age language abilities, and the children with TED did not show stronger procedural learning as compared with peers with a history of LT. However, weaker school-age language abilities were associated with weak procedural learning in TED group. Conclusions & Implications Factors other than deficits in procedural memory are likely to underlie LT. Procedural learning shows promise as a potential predictor of language development in children that are not identified as LTs. What this paper adds What is already known on the subject Poor procedural learning has been associated with developmental language disorders and suggested to underlie language difficulties. However, to our knowledge, this study is the first to investigate procedural learning and its associations with language outcomes in LTs. What this paper adds to existing knowledge Consistent with prior research, we found an association between language abilities and procedural learning in school-aged children, but found no evidence for poor procedural learning in children with a history of LT. Furthermore, the school-age language outcomes were only associated with procedural learning in children with no history of LT. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Our findings suggest that factors other than limitations in procedural learning underlie LT. However, procedural learning could be a useful predictor for school-aged language outcomes in children not identified as LTs.</p

CATALISE: A multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study. Identifying language impairments in children

Delayed or impaired language development is a common developmental concern, yet thereis little agreement about the criteria used to identify and classify language impairments inchildren. Children's language difficulties are at the interface between education, medicineand the allied professions, who may all adopt different approaches to conceptualising them.Our goal in this study was to use an online Delphi technique to see whether it was possibleto achieve consensus among professionals on appropriate criteria for identifying childrenwho might benefit from specialist services. We recruited a panel of 59 experts representingten disciplines (including education, psychology, speech-language therapy/pathology, paediatricsand child psychiatry) from English-speaking countries (Australia, Canada, Ireland,New Zealand, United Kingdom and USA). The starting point for round 1 was a set of 46statements based on articles and commentaries in a special issue of a journal focusing onthis topic. Panel members rated each statement for both relevance and validity on a sevenpointscale, and added free text comments. These responses were synthesised by the firsttwo authors, who then removed, combined or modified items with a view to improving consensus.The resulting set of statements was returned to the panel for a second evaluation(round 2). Consensus (percentage reporting 'agree' or 'strongly agree') was at least 80 percentfor 24 of 27 round 2 statements, though many respondents qualified their responsewith written comments. These were again synthesised by the first two authors. The resultingconsensus statement is reported here, with additional summary of relevant evidence, and aconcluding commentary on residual disagreements and gaps in the evidence base.</p

Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology.

Background: Lack of agreement about criteria and terminology for children’s language problems affects access to services as well as hindering research and practice. We report the second phase of a study using an online Delphi method to address these issues. In the first phase, we focused on criteria for language disorder. Here we consider terminology.Methods: The Delphi method is an iterative process in which an initial set of statements is rated by a panel of experts, who then have the opportunity to view anonymised ratings from other panel members. On this basis they can either revise their views or make a case for their position. The statements are then revised based on panel feedback, and again rated by and commented on by the panel. In this study, feedback from a second round was used to prepare a final set of statements in narrative form. The panel included 57 individuals representing a range of professions and nationalities. Results: We achieved at least 78% agreement for 19 of 21 statements within two rounds of ratings. These were collapsed into 12 statements for the final consensus reported here. The term ‘Language Disorder’ is recommended to refer to a profile of difficulties that causes functional impairment in everyday life and is associated with poor prognosis. The term, ‘Developmental Language Disorder’ (DLD) was endorsed for use when the language disorder was not associated with a known biomedical aetiology. It was also agreed that (a) presence of risk factors (neurobiological or environmental) does not preclude a diagnosis of DLD, (b) DLD can co-occur with other neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g. ADHD) and (c) DLD does not require a mismatch between verbal and nonverbal ability. Conclusions: This Delphi exercise highlights reasons for disagreements about terminology for language disorders and proposes standard definitions and nomenclature. </p

JSL49604 1267..1279

Purpose: The authors investigated mental representations of Piagetian conservation tasks in children with specific language impairment (SL I) and typically developing peers. Children with SL I have normal nonverbal intelligence; however, they exhibit difficulties in Piagetian conservation tasks. The authors tested the hypothesis that conservation difficulties may be due to the degree to which children with SLI rely on external perceptual features of the task as opposed to internal cognitive knowledge about transformation. Method: Twenty-nine children participated, 12 children with SLI (ages 7;0 -10;5) and 17 typically developing peers (ages 5;4 -10;9) who were matched either on chronological age (CA) task or on judgments on the conservation task (conservation matched [CM]). Children solved conservation tasks and then explained their reasoning. Explanations produced in speech and gesture were analyzed. Results: In speech, children in the SLI group expressed proportionately fewer internal explanations than the CA group, but a similar proportion of internal explanations as compared with the younger CM group. In gesture, children with SLI did not differ from either CA or CM children. Conclusions: Children with SLI have weak internal representations of the concept of conservation, similar to those of younger children. Conservation representations appear to be closely related to language skills and verbal working memory