Heritability of specific language impairment depends on diagnostic criteria

Heritability estimates for specific language impairment (SLI) have been inconsistent. Four twin studies reported heritability of 0.5 or more, but a recent report from the Twins Early Development Study found negligible genetic influence in 4-year-olds. We considered whether the method of ascertainment influenced results and found substantially higher heritability if SLI was defined in terms of referral to speech and language pathology services than if defined by language test scores. Further analysis showed that presence of speech difficulties played a major role in determining whether a child had contact with services. Childhood language disorders that are identified by population screening are likely to have a different phenotype and different etiology from clinically referred cases. Genetic studies are more likely to find high heritability if they focus on cases who have speech difficulties and who have been referred for intervention

Heritable risk factors associated with language impairments

There is a strong genetic contribution to children’s language and literacy impairments. The aim of this study was to determine which aspects of the phenotype are familial by comparing 34 parents of probands with language/literacy impairments and 33 parents of typically developing probands. The parents responded to questionnaires regarding previous history for language/reading impairment and participated in psychometric testing. The psychometric test battery consisted of tests assessing non-verbal IQ, short-term memory, articulation, receptive grammar, reading abilities and spelling. Self-report measures demonstrated a higher prevalence of language and literacy impairments in parents of affected probands (32%) compared with parents of unaffected probands (6%). The two groups of parents differed significantly in their performance on the non-word repetition, oromotor and digit span tasks. Non-word repetition gave the best discrimination between the parent groups even when the data from the parents who actually were impaired as ascertained by direct testing or self-report were removed from the analyses. This suggests that non-word repetition serves as a marker of a family risk for language impairment. The paper concludes with a discussion of issues associated with ascertainment of specific language impairment (SLI)

Atypical long-latency auditory event-related potentials in a subset of children with specific language impairment

It has been proposed that specific language impairment (SLI) is the consequence of low-level abnormalities in auditory perception. However, studies of long-latency auditory ERPs in children with SLI have generated inconsistent findings. A possible reason for this inconsistency is the heterogeneity of SLI. The intraclass correlation (ICC) has been proposed as a useful statistic for evaluating heterogeneity because it allows one to compare an individual's auditory ERP with the grand average waveform from a typically developing reference group. We used this method to reanalyse auditory ERPs from a sample previously described by Uwer, Albrecht and von Suchodoletz (2002). In a subset of children with receptive SLI, there was less correspondence (i.e. lower ICC) with the normative waveform (based on the control grand average) than for typically developing children. This poorer correspondence was seen in responses to both tone and speech stimuli for the period 100–228 ms post stimulus onset. The effect was lateralized and seen at right- but not left-sided electrodes

Emotional health in adolescents with and without a history of specific language impairment (SLI)

Objective:  This study examined the emotional health of adolescents with and without specific language impairment (SLI). Method:  One hundred and thirty-nine adolescents with a history of SLI (15;10 years) and a peer group of 124 adolescents with normal language development (NLD) (15;11 years) participated, who were in their final year of compulsory schooling. The risk of emotional difficulties was assessed using the Moods and Feelings Questionnaire (MFQ) and the Child Manifest Anxiety Scale-R (CMAS-R). Comprehensive language and cognition data were available for all participants (NLD and SLI) concurrently and also longitudinally for those with SLI. Results:  A clear increased risk of emotional health symptoms was found for the SLI group on both self- and parental-report. Girls scored less favourably than boys when groups were combined, but these were due to the effect of the NLD group, with no gender differences found in the SLI group. Direct links with language and cognition were not obvious. Instead, more diffuse factors such as family history of emotional health difficulties may warrant further investigation. Conclusion:  There is a marked higher rate of anxiety and depression symptoms in adolescents with SLI. However, these do not appear to be a direct result of impoverished communicative experiences

Preschool language profiles of children at family risk of dyslexia: continuities with specific language impairment.

Background: Children at family risk of dyslexia have been reported to show phonological deficits as well as broader language delays in the preschool years. Method: The preschool language skills of 112 children at family risk of dyslexia (FR) at ages 3½ and 4½ were compared with those of children with SLI and typically developing (TD) controls. Results: Children at FR showed two different profiles: one third of the group resembled the children with SLI and scored poorly across multiple domains of language including phonology. As a group, the remaining children had difficulties on tasks tapping phonological skills at T1 and T2. At the individual level, we confirmed that some FR children had both phonological and broader oral language difficulties (compared with TD controls), some had only phonological difficulties and some appeared to be developing typically. Conclusions: We have highlighted the early overlap between family risk of dyslexia and SLI. A family history of dyslexia carries an increased risk for SLI and the two disorders both show an increased incidence of phonological deficits which appear to a proximal risk factor for developing a reading impairment

Labels, identity, and narratives in children with primary speech and language impairments

Over time, the labels used for various speech and language impairments change. For example, language impairment in children has been called developmental dysphasia/aphasia, language impairment/ disorder/delay/difficulties (Bishop, 2013). Changes in labels reflect our evolving understanding of the nature of a disorder but also the changing social context and mores. Currently a number of terms are in use for speech and language impairments which may be used differently by practitioners and researchers in education and health contexts. For example, the phrase ‘speech, language, and communication needs’ (SLCN) was coined in the UK by the Bercow review to encompass the widest range of these impairments. However the term is used and understood in a variety of ways by different professionals and not used at all by parents (Dockrell, Lindsay, Roulstone, & Law, 2014; Roulstone & Lindsay, 2012). The use of other labels such as specific language impairment or language delay is by no means straightforward as recent debates have illustrated (Bishop, 2014; Reilly et al., 2014). That debate reflected the views of academics, clinicians, educators, and parents (Bishop, 2014; Huneke & Lascelles, 2014; Lauchlan & Boyle, 2014). While professionals debate the best label to describe language impairments, it is evident that language impairments are not well understood in the public domain when compared with other diagnostic categories such as Autism, and ADHD (Kamhi, 2004)