Investigating the role of language in children's early educational outcomes

Most children develop speech and language skills effortlessly, but some are slow to develop these skills and then go on to struggle with literacy and academic skills throughout their schooling. It is the first few years of life that are critical to their subsequent performance.\ud This project looks at what we know about the early communication environment in a child’s first two years of life, and the role this plays in preparing children for school using data from a large longitudinal survey of young people (ALSPAC - the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children).\ud It examines the characteristics of the environment in which children learn to communicate (such as activities undertaken with children, the mother’s attitude towards her baby, and the wider support available to the family) and the extent to which this affects a child’s readiness for school entry (defined as their early language, reading, writing, and maths skills that they need in school).\ud \ud Key Findings:\ud •\ud There is a strong association between a child’s social background and their readiness for school as measured by their scores on school entry assessments covering language, reading, maths and writing.\ud •\ud Language development at the age of 2 years predicts children’s performance on entry to primary school. Children’s understanding and use of vocabulary and their use of two or three word sentences at 2 years is very strongly associated with their performance on entering primary school.\ud •\ud The children’s communication environment influences language development. The number of books available to the child, the frequency of visits to the library, parents teaching a range of activities, the number of toys available, and attendance at pre-school, are all important predictors of the child’s expressive vocabulary at 2 years. The amount of television on in the home is also a predictor; as this time increased, so the child’s score at school entry decreased.\ud •\ud The communication environment is a more dominant predictor of early language than social background. In the early stages of language development, it is the particular aspects of a child’s communication environment that are associated with language acquisition rather than the broader socio-economic context of the family.\ud •\ud The child’s language and their communication environment influence the child’s performance at school entry in addition to their social background. Children’s success at school is governed not only by their social background; the child’s communication environment\ud before their second birthday and their language at the age of two years also have a strong influence

An explorative study on robotics for supporting children with Autism Spectrum Disorder during clinical procedures

This short report presents a small-scale explorative study about children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) interaction with robots during clinical interactions. This is part of an ongoing project, which aims at defining a robotic service for supporting children with developmental disabilities and increase the efficiency of routine procedures that may create distress, e.g.having blood taken or an orthopaedic plaster cast applied. Five children with confirmed diagnoses of ASD interacted with two social robots: the small humanoid NAO and the pet-like MiRo. The encounters mixed play activities with a simulated clinical procedure. We included parents/carers in the interaction to ensure the child was comfortable and at ease. The results of video analysis and parents' feedback confirm possible benefits of the physical presence of robots to reduce children’s anxiety and increase compliance with instructions. Parents/carers convincingly support the introduction of robots in hospital procedures to their help children

Association of proximal elements of social disadvantage with children's language development at 2 years: An analysis of data from the Children in Focus (CiF) sample from the ALSPAC birth cohort

This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Law, J., Clegg, J., Rush, R., Roulstone, S. & Peters, T. J. (2018) Association of proximal elements of social disadvantage with children's language development at 2 years: An analysis of data from the Children in Focus (CiF) sample from the ALSPAC birth cohort. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12442. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Use of Self-Archived Versions.Background: An association between social disadvantage and early language development is commonly reported in the literature, but less attention has been paid to the way that different aspects of social disadvantage affect both expressive and receptive language in the first 2 years of life. Aims: To examine the contributions of gender, parental report of early language skills and proximal social variables (the amount of stimulation in the home, the resources available to the child and the attitudes/emotional status of the primary carer and the support available to him/her) controlling for distal social variables (family income and maternal education) to children's expressive and receptive language development at 2 years in a community ascertained population cohort. Methods & Procedures: Data from 1314 children in the Children in Focus (CiF) sample from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (ALSPAC) were analyzed. Multivariable regression models identified the contribution of proximal (what parents do with their children) measures of social disadvantage adjusting for more distal (e.g., family income and material wealth) measures as well as early language development at 15 months to the development of verbal comprehension, expressive vocabulary and expressive grammar (word combinations) at 2 years of age. Outcome & Results: In the final multivariable models gender, earlier language and proximal social factors, co‐varying for distal factors predicted 36% of the variance for expressive vocabulary, 22% for receptive language and 27% for word combinations at 2 years. Language development at 15 months remained a significant predictor of outcomes at 24 months. Environmental factors were associated with both expressive scales but the picture was rather more mixed for receptive language suggesting that there may be different mechanisms underlying the different processes. Conclusions & Implications: This study supports the argument that social advantage makes a strong contribution to children's language development in the early years. The results suggest that what parents/carers do with their children is critical even when structural aspects of social disadvantage such as family income and housing have been taken into consideration although this relationship varies for different aspects of language. This has the potential to inform the targeting of public health interventions focusing on early language and pre‐literacy skills on the one hand and home learning environments on the other and, potentially, the two in combination.54pubpub

Salmonella and Campylobacter spp. in Northern Elephant Seals, California

Campylobacter and Salmonella spp. prevalence and antimicrobial drug sensitivity were determined in northern elephant seals that had not entered the water and seals that were stranded on the California coast. Stranded seals had a higher prevalence of pathogenic bacteria, possibly from terrestrial sources, which were more likely to be resistant

Examining the impact of a city-wide intensive interaction staff training program for adults with profound and multiple learning disability: a mixed methods evaluation

PURPOSE: Intensive interaction is used to increase communication in people at a pre-verbal stage of communication development. The aim of the study was to evaluate a city-wide implementation of intensive interaction training to care staff by investigating how staff use intensive interaction with adults with profound and multiple learning disability, and their perceived impact of intensive interaction on these service users. METHOD: In phase 1, a survey investigated the outcomes of intensive interaction training on the work practices of staff supporting people with profound and multiple learning disability. In phase 2, individual interviews were conducted with staff to further investigate these experiences and perceptions. Interviews were analyzed using thematic analysis. RESULTS: Almost all of the participants (96%) reported using intensive interaction at work with 76% wanting to use intensive interaction with more people. Factors preventing staff from using Intensive Interaction were highlighted. Three over-arching themes were identified from the interviews; the impact of Intensive Interaction; facilitating the implementation of Intensive Interaction and; the organizational support and barriers to the implementation of Intensive Interaction. CONCLUSIONS: Training in intensive interaction at a city-wide level enables staff to develop their knowledge of the approach and to engage in intensive interaction to promote the social inclusion of adults with profound and multiple learning disability. The barriers preventing staff from engaging in Intensive Interaction with adults with profound and multiple learning disability should be addressed. Implications for Rehabilitation Training care staff in intensive interaction promotes social inclusion for adults with profound and multiple learning disability. Care staff are able to identify changes in the interactive and communicative behaviors of adults with profound and multiple learning disability. Care staff perceive they are able to facilitate changes in the interactive and communicative behaviors of adults with profound and multiple learning disability. Care staff need continued support and training to sustain their use of Intensive Interaction with adults with profound and multiple learning disability. Services need to reduce the barriers of staffing, management and organizational structure to enable care staff to sustain their use of Intensive Interaction for adults with profound and multiple learning disability

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

© 2016 Bishop et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Delayed or impaired language development is a common developmental concern, yet there is little agreement about the criteria used to identify and classify language impairments in children. Children\u27s language difficulties are at the interface between education, medicine and 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 possible to achieve consensus among professionals on appropriate criteria for identifying children who might benefit from specialist services. We recruited a panel of 59 experts representing ten disciplines (including education, psychology, speech-language therapy/pathology, paediatrics and 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 46 statements based on articles and commentaries in a special issue of a journal focusing on this topic. Panel members rated each statement for both relevance and validity on a sevenpoint scale, and added free text comments. These responses were synthesised by the first two 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 \u27agree\u27 or \u27strongly agree\u27) was at least 80 percent for 24 of 27 round 2 statements, though many respondents qualified their response with written comments. These were again synthesised by the first two authors. The resulting consensus statement is reported here, with additional summary of relevant evidence, and a concluding commentary on residual disagreements and gaps in the evidence base

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