Trabalho apresentado em 10th European Congress of Speech Language Therapy, 10-12 maio 2018, Cascais, PortugalN/

Castro, Ana

Dôro, Catarina

Marques, Carolina

English

Castro,  Ana

Repositório Comum

From the assessment of speech samples to intervention in Language Impairment of European Portuguese speaking childrenQuestions(i) Do SLI children show different patterns onlanguage development comparing to their typicallydeveloping peers?(ii) Do SynSLI children show more ungrammaticalsentences and morpho-syntactic errors, such as inagreement, functional words and word order, thanPhoSLI children?Aim of the study➜ to show that a characterization of themorphosyntactic competences of children withlanguage impairment, using an LARSP - LanguageAssessment, Remediation and Screening Procedure forEuropean Portuguese (LARSP-PE) (Castro, Marques &Dôro, 2017), allows a clearer insight into their(dis)abilities in terms of language developmentConclusionsLARSP-PE is a valuable tool for the assessment of Language Impairment since it allows to characterizesystematically the spontaneous speech of children and can provide a more precise and accurate diagnosis andguidance to intervention.MethodsLanguage sample collection• narrative telling - Frog, where are you? [Mayer, 1969]• adult-child interaction in clinical contextTranscription CHAT format [MacWhinney, 2000]AnalysisLARSP-PE types of utterances and morphosyntacticcategoriestypes of ungrammaticality (morphosyntatic errors)Participants 4 European Portuguese speaking children diagnosed with SLI, 2 mainly on the phonological domain (PhoSLI) and 2 on the syntactic domain (SynSLI) [Friedmann & Novogrodsky, 2008]Data and ResultsDiscussion➜ Results show that language sample analysis, summarizedin a LARSP profile, accounts for a characterization ofdifferent language modular deficits.➜ Morphosyntactic language profilling must be comparedwith other language domain profiles in order to clarify thenature of (specific?) deficits.SEX AGE LI diagnosisD M 4;11 PhoSLIA M 6;4 PhoSLIR M 6;8 SynSLIB M 7;11 SynSLID A R BUNANALISEDunintelligible 4 1 3 0symbolic noise or interjection3 2 0 1ungrammatical ordeviant2 4 2 11repeated 1 0 0 0PROBLEMATIC incomplete 6 4 3 1ambiguous 0 0 0 0stereotypes 1 1 0 1ANALYSED 61 26 55 35TOTAL 78 38 63 49Table 2 . Utterances typeBackgroundChildren with language impairment, such as SpecificLanguage Impairment (SLI), or what is coming to beknown as Developmental Language Disorders(DSD), show differences in the pace and patterns oftheir language acquisition. SLI can affect modules oflanguage to a different extent. Lexical, phonological,morphological, syntactic, semantic and pragmaticdomains can be affected isolated or cojointly, indifferent language structures (Rapin, 1996; Leonard,1998, 2014; Botting & Conti-Ramsden, 2004; Friedmann &Novogrodsky, 2008, a.o.).Only an accurate linguistic profile of the child, basedon daily life linguistic performance, allows a fullunderstanding of its (dis)abilities. Ideally, theassessment must combine data collected fromstandardized tests with language samples analysis,using, for example, a tool such as LARSP - LanguageAssessment, Remediation and Screening Procedure(Crystal, Fletcher & Garman, 1976). This procedure has beenadapted to European Portuguese (Castro, Marques &Dôro, 2017) and enables the clinicians to appraise thestrengths and weaknesses of the discourse of achild, as well as to locate it in a developmental scaleof morphosyntactic development.D A R Bpreposition - diferent lexical selection                         (phonemic substitution)2 2 1 4lack of functional elementsdeterminer 1 1 1nominal agreement (plural) 1 1clitic object pronoun (replaced by strong pronoun)1verb/verbal inflection 3preposition 2pronouns reference 1Table 3 . Type of ungrammaticalityTable 1 . Characterization of participants (sex, age and LI diagnosis)PhoSLI & SynSLI children­ less complex structures, at sentence, phrase and word-levels, than typically developing childrenPhoSLI children­ grammatical errors are mainly a different lexical selection ofa preposition [due to phonemic substitutions /n/ ‣ /d/? ]SynSLI children­ higher number of ungrammatical sentences­ more difficulties with functional categories andmorphological inflectionsAna Castro 1,2 Catarina Dôro 1,3 Carolina Marques 1,4Language sample analysis in language impairmentbridging 20th nd 21st century competenc sQuestions(i) Do SLI children show different patterns on languagedevelopment comparing to their typically developing peer ?(ii) Do SynSLI children show more ungrammatical sentences andmorpho-syntactic errors, such as in agreement, functional wordsand word order, than PhoSLI children?Aim of the study to show that a characterization of the morpho-syntacticcompetences of children with language impairment, using anadapted and validated version of LARSP - Language Assessment,Remediation and Screening Procedure for European Portuguese(LARSP-PT) (Castro et al, in preparation), allows a clearer insight intotheir (dis)abilities in terms of language dev lopmentConclusionsLanguage samples analysis is an important tool for the assessment of language impairment by SLT since it can provide a more precise andaccurate di gnosis and guidance to intervention, namely regarding the language structures affected and the direction to remediate them.MethodsLanguage sample collectionnarrative telling - Frog, where are you? (Mayer, 1969) adult-child interaction in clinical contextTranscriptionCHAT format (MacWhinney, 2000)AnalysisLARSP-PT types of utterances and morpho-syntactic categoriestypes of ungrammaticality (morpho-syntatic errors)ar icipants Four European Portuguese speaking children diagnosed with Specific Language Impairment (SLI), mainly on the phonological domain (PhoSLI) or syntatic domain (SynSLI)Data and ResultsDiscussion Results show that language sample analysis, summarized in a LARSP profile, accounts for a characterization of differentlanguage modular deficits. Morpho-syntactic language profilling must be compared with other language domain profiles in order to clarify the nature of(specific?) deficits.SEX AGE LI diagnosisD M 4;11 PhoSLIA M 6;4 PhoSLIR M 6;8 SynSLIB M 7;11 SynSLID A R BUNANALISEDunintelligible 4 1 3 0symbolic noise or interjectio3 2 0 1ungrammatical ordeviant2 4 2 11repeated 1 0 0 0PROBLEMATIC incomplete 6 4 3 1ambiguous 0 0 0 0stereotypes 1 1 0 1ANALYSED 61 26 55 35TOTAL 78 38 63 49Table 2 . Utterances type per participantBackgroundChildren with language impairment, such as specific languageimpairment (SLI), show differences in the pace and patterns oftheir language acquisition. SLI can affect modules of languageto a different extent. Lexical, phonological, morphological,syntactic, semantic nd pragmatic domains can be affectedisolated or cojointly, in different language structures (Rapin, 1996;Leonard, 1998, 2014; Botting & Conti-Ramsden, 2004; Friedmann & Novog odsky, 2008, a.o.).Only an accurate linguistic profile of the patient, based ondaily life linguistic performance, allows a full understanding ofits (in)competences.Ideally, speech and language therapists (SLT) should combinelanguage samples analysis with data collected fromstandardized tests. However, since spontaneous languageanalysis takes longer and there are not precisely guidedprocedures for doing it, language assessment lacks thisdimension in most cases .An adapted version of LARSP, a linguistic procedure forassessing morpho-syntactic competences developed forEnglish (Crystal, Fletcher & Garman, 1976), has been used by SLT inPortugal for many years. Nevertheless, since this versionmissed important features, such as a morpho-syntacticdevelopmental scale validated for Portuguese children, andwith the publication of more standardized tests, SLT droppedthe analysis of spontaneous speech samples.­ PhoSLI & SynSLI  children­ less complex structures, at sentence, phrase and word-levels, than typically developing children ­ PhoSLI children­ grammatical errors are mainly a different lexical selection of a preposition  [ due to phonemic substitutions /n/  /d/? ]­ SynSLI children­ more ungrammatical sentences­ more difficulties with functional categories and morphological inflectionsTable 1 . Characterization of participants (sex, age and LI diagnosis)ReferencesBotting, N., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2004). Characteristics of Children with Specific Language Impairment. In L. Verhoeven & H. van Balkom (Eds.), Classification ofDevelopmental Language Disorders: theoretical issues and clinical implications (pp. 23–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Castro, A., Costa, A. M., Dôro, C., & Marques, C. (in preparation). Profiling Linguistic Disability in European Portuguese: Language Assessment, Remediation andScreening Procedure in European Portuguese (LARSP-PT).Crystal, D., Fletcher, P., & Garman, M. (1976).The Grammatical Analysis of Language Disability. London: Edward Arnold.Friedmann, N., & Novogrodsky, R. (2008). Subtypes of SLI: SySLI, PhoSLI, LeSLI, and PraSLI. In A. Gavarró & M. J. Freitas (Eds.), Language Acquisition andDevelopment (pp. 205–217). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholar Press.Leonard, L. B. (1998). Children with Specific Language Impairment. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.Leonard, L. B. (2014). Children with Specific Language Impairment and their Contribution to the Study of Language Development. Journal of Child Language, 41Suppl 1(0 1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000914000130Mayer, M. (1969). Frog,Where are you? NewYork: Dial Books forYoung Readers.MacWhinney, B. (2010). The CHILDES Project: tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved fromhttp://talkbank.org/manuals/CHAT.pdfRapin, I. (1996). Practitioner Review: Developmental Language Disorders: A Clinical Update. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37(6), 643–655.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1996.tb01456.xD A R Bpreposition - diferent lexical selection(phonemic substitution)2 2 1 4lack of functional elementsdeterminer 1 1 1nominal agreement (plural) 1 1clitic object pronoun (replaced by strong pronoun)1verb/verbal inflection 3preposition 2pronouns reference 1Table 3 . Ungrammaticalities per participantAna Castro1 2, Dina Caetano Alves1 3, Ana Rita Serrudo1, Catarina Dôro1 & Carolina Marques11 Escola Superior de Saúde do Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal2 Centro de Linguística da Universidade Nova de Lisboa (CLUNL) 3 Centro de Linguística da Universidade de Lisboa (CLUL)Language sample a alysis in language impairmentbridging 20th and 21st century competencesQuestions(i) Do SLI children show different patterns on languagedevelopment comparing to their typically developing peers?(ii) Do SynSLI children show more ungrammatical sentences andmorpho-syntactic errors, such as in agreement, functional wordsand word order, than PhoSLI children?Aim of the study to show that a characterization of the morpho-syntacticcompete ces of children with language impairment, using anadapted and validated version of LARSP - Language Assessment,Remediation and Screening Procedure for European Portuguese(LARSP-PT) (Castro et al, in preparation), allows a clearer insight intotheir (dis)abilities in terms of language developmentConclusionsLanguage samples analysis is an important t ol for the ssessment of language impairment by SLT since it can provide a more precise andaccurate diagnosis and guidance to intervention, namely regarding the language structures affected and the direction to remediate them.MethodsLanguage sample collectionnarrative telling - Frog, where are you? (Mayer, 1969) adult-child interaction in clinical contextTranscriptionCHAT format (MacWhinney, 2000)AnalysisLARSP-PT types of utterances and morpho-syntactic categoriestypes of ungrammaticality (morpho-syntatic errors)Participants Four European Portuguese speaking children diagnosed with Specific Language Impairment (SLI), mainly on the phonological domain (PhoSLI) or syntatic domain (SynSLI)Data and ResultsDiscussion Results show that language sample analysis, summarized in a LARSP profile, accounts for a characterization of differentlanguage modular deficits. Morpho-syntactic language profilling must be compared with other language domain profiles in order to clarify the nature of(specific?) deficits.SEX AGE LI diagnosisD M 4;11 PhoSLIA M 6;4 PhoSLIR M 6;8 SynSLIB M 7;11 SynSLID A R BUNANALISEDunintelligible 4 1 3 0symbolic noise or interjection3 2 0 1ungrammatical ordeviant2 4 2 11repeated 1 0 0 0PROBLEMATIC incomplete 6 4 3 1ambiguous 0 0 0 0stereotypes 1 1 0 1ANALYSED 61 26 55 35TOTAL 78 38 63 49Table 2 . Utterances type per participantBackgroundChildren with language impairment, such as specific languageimpairment (SLI), show differences in the pace and patterns oftheir language acquisition. SLI can affect modules of languageto a different extent. Lexical, phonological, morphological,syntactic, semantic and pragmatic domains can be affectedisolated or cojointly, in different language stru tures (Rapin, 1996;Leonard, 1998, 2014; Botting & Conti-Ramsden, 2004; Friedmann & Novogrodsky, 2008, a.o.).Only an accurate linguistic profile of the patient, based ondaily life linguistic performance, allows a full understanding ofits (in)competences.Ide lly, speech and language therapists (SLT) should combinelanguage samples analysis with data collected fromstandardized tests. However, sinc spontaneous languagea alysis takes longer and there are not precisely guidedprocedures for doing it, language assessment lacks thisdimension in most cases .An adapted version of LARSP, a linguistic procedure forassessing morpho-syntactic competences develope forEnglish (Crystal, Fletcher & Garman, 1976), h s b en used by SLT inPortugal for many ye rs. Nevertheless, since this versionmissed important features, such as a morpho-syntacticdevelopmental scale validated for Portuguese children, andwith the publication of more standardized tests, SLT droppedthe analysis of spontaneous speech samples.­ PhoSLI & SynSLI  children­ less complex structures, at sentence, phrase and word-levels, than typically developing children ­ PhoSLI children­ grammatical errors are mainly a different lexical selection of a preposition  [ due to phonemic substitutions /n/  /d/? ]­ SynSLI children­ more ungrammatical sentences­ more difficulties with functional categories and morphological inflectionsTable 1 . Characterization of participants (sex, age and LI diagnosis)ReferencesBotting, N., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2004). Characteristics of Children with Specific Language Impairment. In L. Verhoeven & H. van Balkom (Eds.), Classification ofDevelopmental Language Disorders: theoretical issues and clinical implications (pp. 23–38). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Castro, A., Costa, A. M., Dôro, C., & Marques, C. (in preparation). Profiling Linguistic Disability in European Portuguese: Language Assessment, Remediation andScreening Procedure in European Portuguese (LARSP-PT).Crystal, D., Fletcher, P., & Garman, M. (1976).The Grammatical Analysis of Language Disability. London: Edward Arnold.Friedmann, N., & Novogrodsky, R. (2008). Subtypes of SLI: SySLI, PhoSLI, LeSLI, and PraSLI. In A. Gavarró & M. J. Freitas (Eds.), Language Acquisition andDevelopment (pp. 205–217). Newcastle, UK: Cambridge Scholar Press.Leonard, L. B. (1998). Children with Specific Language Impairment. Cambridge, MA:The MIT Press.Leonard, L. B. (2014). Children with Specific Language Impairment and their Contribution to the Study of Language Development. Journal of Child Language, 41Suppl 1(0 1), 38–47. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000914000130Mayer, M. (1969). Frog,Where are you? NewYork: Dial Books forYoung Readers.MacWhinney, B. (2010). The CHILDES Project: tools for analyzing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Retrieved fromhttp://talkbank.org/manuals/CHAT.pdfRapin, I. (1996). Practitioner Review: Developmental Language Disorders: A Clinical Update. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37(6), 643–655.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.1996.tb01456.xD A R Bpreposition - diferent lexical selection(phonemic substitution)2 2 1 4lack of functional elementsdeterminer 1 1 1nominal agreement (plural) 1 1clitic object pronoun (replaced by strong pronoun)1verb/verbal inflection 3preposition 2pronouns reference 1Table 3 . Ungrammaticalities per participantAna Castro1 2, Dina Caetano Alves1 3, Ana Rita Serrudo1, Catarina Dôro1 & Carolina Marques11 Escola Superior de Saúde do Instituto Politécnico de Setúbal2 Centro de Linguística da Universidade Nova de Lisboa (CLUNL) 3 Centro de Linguística da Universidade de Lisboa (CLUL)The authors acknowledge the collaboration of Dina Caetano Alves and Ana Rita Serrudo.

From the assessment of speech samples to intervention in language impairment of European Portuguese speaking children

https://comum.rcaap.pt/bitstream/10400.26/25046/1/CPLOL2018_1458_From%20the%20assessment%20of%20speech%20samples%20to%20intervention%20in%20Language%20Impairment%20of%20European%20Portuguese%20speaking%20children.pdf

From the assessment of speech samples to intervention in language impairment of European Portuguese speaking children

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Repositório Comum