Promoting Reading Achievement in Children With Developmental Language Disorders: What Can We Learn From Research on Specific Language Impairment and Dyslexia?

Purpose Specific language impairment (SLI; see also developmental language disorder) and dyslexia are separate, yet frequently co-occurring disorders that confer risks to reading comprehension and academic achievement. Until recently, most studies of one disorder had little consideration of the other, and each disorder was addressed by different practitioners. However, understanding how the two disorders relate to each other is important for advancing theories about each disorder and improving reading comprehension and academic achievement. The purpose of this clinical focus article is to integrate research on SLI and dyslexia as well as advocate for the consideration of comorbidities in future research and clinical practice. Method The first section reviews definitions as well as inclusionary and exclusionary criteria for SLI and dyslexia. The second section reviews research demonstrating that SLI and dyslexia are different disorders that often co-occur. Studies examining language, working memory, and academic achievement in children with separate versus co-occurring SLI and dyslexia are reviewed. The final section compares and contrasts school identification frameworks for children with SLI and dyslexia and considers the potential benefits of incorporating broad language skills into response to intervention (RTI) assessment frameworks. Conclusions Children with weak language skills are at a high risk of experiencing reading problems, but language difficulties are often hidden from view. Directly addressing language skills within school RTI frameworks can help improve the identification and treatment of children with SLI and dyslexia as well as support improved reading comprehension and academic achievement for all students. Presentation Video https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.13063793

The Effect of Semantic Set Size on Word Learning by Preschool Children

Purpose - The purpose was to determine whether semantic set size, a measure of the number of semantic neighbors, influenced word learning, and whether the influence of semantic set size was broad, showing effects on multiple measures both during and after learning. Method - Thirty-six preschool children were exposed to 10 nonobjects, varying in semantic set size, paired with 10 nonwords, controlling phonotactic probability and neighborhood density. Nonobject-nonword pairs were presented in a game format. Learning was measured in naming and referent identification tasks administered before, during, and 1 week after training. Results - Results showed no differences in naming or identifying the referents of the nonobject-nonword pairs with small versus large semantic set sizes before and during training. However, 1 week after training, children named and identified the referents of nonobject-nonword pairs with small set sizes more accurately than those with large set sizes. Conclusions - Similarity to known representations appears to influence word learning, regardless of whether the similarity involves lexical or semantic representations. However, the direction of the effect of similarity to known representations on word learning varies depending on the specific type of representation involved. Specifically, lexical similarity speeds learning, whereas semantic similarity slows learning

Adult and Child Semantic Neighbors of the Kroll and Potter (1984) Nonobjects

Purpose - The purpose was to determine the number of semantic neighbors, namely semantic set size, for 88 nonobjects (J. F. Kroll & M. C. Potter, 1984) and determine how semantic set size related to other measures and age. Method - Data were collected from 82 adults and 92 preschool children in a discrete association task. The nonobjects were presented via computer, and participants reported the first word that came to mind that was meaningfully related to the nonobject. Words reported by two or more participants were considered semantic neighbors. The strength of each neighbor was computed as the proportion of participants who reported the neighbor. Results - Results showed that semantic set size was not significantly correlated with objectlikeness ratings or object decision reaction times from J. F. Kroll and M. C. Potter (1984). However, semantic set size was significantly negatively correlated with the strength of the strongest neighbor(s). In terms of age effects, adult and child semantic set sizes were significantly positively correlated and the majority of numeric differences were on the order of 0-3 neighbors. Comparison of actual neighbors showed greater discrepancies; however, this varied by neighbor strength. Conclusions - Semantic set size can be determined for nonobjects. Specific guidelines are suggested for using these nonobjects in future research

If We Don’t Look, We Won’t See: Measuring Language Development to Inform Literacy Instruction

Oral language abilities enable children to learn to read, and they predict future academic achievement and life outcomes. However, children with language impairment frequently go unidentified because schools do not systematically measure oral language development. Given that identification paves the way for treatment, schools should increase attention to oral language development, particularly within response to intervention (RTI) frameworks, which aim to prevent learning disabilities by identifying and intervening at early stages. Formal schooling should address language comprehension (in addition to word reading) to ensure an adequate foundation for future reading comprehension. In support, we overview the developmental relations between oral language abilities and reading skills, review current school-based assessment frameworks, and discuss how these frameworks can include language assessments. Measuring language skills early and often benefits not only those who have language impairment but also all children, as it documents language variability to inform differentiated instruction

Understanding Dyslexia in the Context of Developmental Language Disorders

Purpose: The purpose of this tutorial is to discuss the language basis of dyslexia in the context of developmental language disorders (DLDs). Whereas most studies have focused on the phonological skills of children with dyslexia, we bring attention to broader language skills. Method: We conducted a focused literature review on the language basis of dyslexia from historical and theoretical perspectives with a special emphasis on the relation between dyslexia and DLD and on the development of broader language skills (e.g., vocabulary, syntax, and discourse) before and after the identification of dyslexia. Results: We present clinically relevant information on the history of dyslexia as a language-based disorder, the operational definitions used to diagnose dyslexia in research and practice, the relation between dyslexia and DLD, and the language abilities of children with dyslexia. Conclusions: We discuss 3 clinical implications for working with children with dyslexia in school settings: (a) Children with dyslexia-with and without comorbid DLDs-often have language deficits outside the phonological domain; (b) intervention should target a child\u27s strengths and weaknesses relative to reading outcomes, regardless of diagnostic labels; and (c) those who have dyslexia, regardless of language abilities at the time of diagnosis, may be at risk for slower language acquisition across their lifetime. Longitudinal studies are needed to assess multiple language skills early, at the time of the diagnosis of dyslexia, and years later to better understand the complex development of language and reading in children with dyslexia

Structured Narrative Retell Instruction for Young Children From Low Socioeconomic Backgrounds: A Preliminary Study of Feasibility

Successful acquisition of literacy depends on adequate development of decoding skills as well as broader, meaning-related knowledge and skills for text comprehension. Children from low socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds are often challenged in both domains, relative to peers who are not economically disadvantaged. The efficacy of code-focused instructional programs for at-risk preliterate children is well supported, but less evidence is available regarding interventions to improve broader language and comprehension skills. This preliminary study tested the feasibility of a new intervention, structured narrative retell instruction (SNRI), and explored its potential to enhance meaning-related knowledge and skills, including vocabulary, listening comprehension, and narrative skills, in pre-literate, low SES children. SNRI used authentic children\u27s books to model comprehension processes, explicitly teach story grammar, and implicitly target microstructural aspects of narratives. Participants included 9 children with a mean age of 60 months, who were randomly assigned to SNRI or to code-focused literacy instruction (CFLI). Each group received 12, 40-min instructional sessions over 6 weeks. Pre- and post-tests were administered to assess vocabulary, listening comprehension, narrative macrostructure and narrative microstructure, as well as alphabet knowledge, phonological awareness, and concepts of print. The feasibility of SNRI was demonstrated by completion of the designed study, moderately high treatment fidelity, and qualitative feedback from interventionists. The SNRI group also made significant gains on 4 of the 7 meaning-related measures (p \u3c 0.10). In comparison, the CFLI group made significant gains on 2 of 7 meaning-related measures. We conclude that SNRI is feasible and shows potential for improving language skills related to comprehension and that further research investigating its efficacy is warranted

Reading and Math Achievement in Children With Dyslexia, Developmental Language Disorder, or Typical Development: Achievement Gaps Persist From Second Through Fourth Grades

We examined how children (n=448) who met research criteria for separate vs. co-occurring DLD and dyslexia performed on school-based measures of academic functioning in reading and math between second and fourth grades. Growth curve models were used to examine the overall form of growth and differences between groups. Children with DLD and/or dyslexia in second grade showed early and persistent deficits on school-administered measures of reading and math. In second grade, children with typical development (TD) scored significantly higher than all other groups, children with DLD+dyslexia scored significantly lower than all other groups, and children with dyslexia-only and DLD-only did not differ from each other. Only small differences in growth rates were observed, and gaps in second grade did not close. Few children (20-27%) meeting research criteria for dyslexia and/or DLD had received specialized support services. Children with DLD-only received services at less than half the rate of the dyslexia groups, despite similar levels of academic performance. Evidence of significant and persistent functional impacts on academic achievement support the validity of standard research criteria for dyslexia and DLD. Low rates of reported support services in these children—especially those with DLD-only—highlight the need to raise awareness of these disorders

Spoken Word Learning in Children With Developmental Language Disorder or Dyslexia

Purpose Word learning difficulties have been documented in multiple studies involving children with dyslexia and developmental language disorder (DLD; see also specific language impairment). However, no previous studies have directly contrasted word learning in these two frequently co-occurring disorders. We examined word learning in second-grade students with DLD-only and dyslexia-only as compared to each other, peers with both disorders (DLD + dyslexia), and peers with typical development. We hypothesized that children with dyslexia-only and DLD-only would show differences in word learning due to differences in their core language strengths and weaknesses. Method Children ( = 244) were taught eight novel pseudowords paired with unfamiliar objects. The teaching script included multiple exposures to the phonological form, the pictured object, a verbal semantic description of the object, and spaced retrieval practice opportunities. Word learning was assessed immediately after instruction with tasks requiring recall or recognition of the phonological and semantic information. Results Children with dyslexia-only performed significantly better on existing vocabulary measures than their peers with DLD-only. On experimental word learning measures, children in the dyslexia-only and DLD + dyslexia groups showed significantly poorer performance than typically developing children on all word learning tasks. Children with DLD-only differed significantly from the TD group on a single word learning task assessing verbal semantic recall. Conclusions Overall, results indicated that children with dyslexia display broad word learning difficulties extending beyond the phonological domain; however, this contrasted with their relatively strong performance on measures of existing vocabulary knowledge. More research is needed to understand relations between word learning abilities and overall vocabulary knowledge and how to close vocabulary gaps for children with both disorders. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14832717

Are Specific Language Impairment and Dyslexia Distinct Disorders?

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether specific language impairment (SLI) and dyslexia are distinct developmental disorders. Method: Study 1 investigated the overlap between SLI identified in kindergarten and dyslexia identified in 2nd, 4th, or 8th grades in a representative sample of 527 children. Study 2 examined phonological processing in a subsample of participants, including 21 children with dyslexia only, 43 children with SLI only, 18 children with SLI and dyslexia, and 165 children with typical language/reading development. Measures of phonological awareness and nonword repetition were considered. Results: Study 1 showed limited but statistically significant overlap between SLI and dyslexia. Study 2 found that children with dyslexia or a combination of dyslexia and SLI performed significantly less well on measures of phonological processing than did children with SLI only and those with typical development. Children with SLI only showed only mild deficits in phonological processing compared with typical children. Conclusions: These results support the view that SLI and dyslexia are distinct but potentially comorbid developmental language disorders. A deficit in phonological processing is closely associated with dyslexia but not with SLI when it occurs in the absence of dyslexia