On the many terms for developmental language and learning impairments

Understanding factors influencing wellbeing is crucial for the development of effective services. Aphasia in older individuals and developmental language disorder (DLD) in children significantly affect how people live and function. Despite the increasing stroke incidence in young adults and the growing recognition of DLD as a lifelong disorder, the literature lacks evidence on the wellbeing of young adults, aged between 18 and 40 years old, with these conditions. To identify factors influencing wellbeing in young adults with aphasia and DLD. This cross-sectional between-group study involved 78 young adults with aphasia, DLD and no language impairments, with mean (SD) age of 30.5 (6.38) years. A total of 12 measures were used to assess wellbeing, language, cognition, health, emotional distress, social functioning and psychological resources. Feasibility and acceptability were informed by a pilot-study. One-way-unrelated analysis of variance (ANOVA) and Kruskal-Wallis tests were used to compare groups on language, cognition and wellbeing, while correlation analyses identified factors influencing wellbeing in each group. No significant differences were found between clinical groups in language and cognitive profiles, with both scoring lower than those with no language impairments. The wellbeing of individuals with aphasia and DLD was similar to that of adults with no language impairments. Health, emotional distress and social support were common drivers of wellbeing among all groups, with positive performance in those scales indicating better wellbeing. Language and self-esteem showed significant links with wellbeing for those with DLD, but not for the aphasia group. The higher the self-esteem level of people with DLD, the higher their wellbeing rating. Interestingly, language was negatively related to wellbeing in people with DLD, with higher language scores correlating with lower levels of wellbeing. Aphasia and DLD share factors affecting wellbeing, but the different origins of the disorders seem to influence the overall nature of wellbeing. Wellbeing in DLD is primarily impacted by the language disorder, whereas in aphasia it is influenced by its secondary to the disorder characteristics and primarily emotional health. This study highlights the need for holistic therapy and ongoing psychosocial support to optimize services for young adults with these impairments. What is already known on the subject Aphasia and DLD significantly impact social and emotional aspects of life. However, knowledge about wellbeing in young adults with these disorders remains limited. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge This research is the first to compare wellbeing in aphasia and DLD. It highlights the impact of several psychosocial factors and clinical characteristics including language on wellbeing, considering whether individuals developed language disorders during childhood or acquired them later in adult life. While there is a small amount of evidence on wellbeing in young adults with DLD, this is the first study to investigate wellbeing in young adults with aphasia. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The type of language disorder may influence wellbeing in diverse ways. Speech and language therapists must evaluate the impact of these disorders on young adults' wellbeing. Rehabilitation should consider both personal factors and external support systems, following appropriate care models. Our findings suggest that aphasia interventions might benefit from focusing on enhancing emotional wellbeing and social networks, particularly in young adults. For individuals with DLD, it appears that the emphasis should be on improving communication skills by addressing functional constraints in social interactions and considering their psychological resources. Further research is needed to confirm these potential intervention strategies. An interdisciplinary approach is essential for optimal outcomes.

Between September and December 2023, Babylonia collected questions from parents regarding their children’s language development. This article aims to answer the following questions: What are some red flags for potential communication disorder? How can I foster strong communication skills in children with communication disorders? How can I differentiate between language difficulties and learning difficulties? What resources or therapies are there for children with language delays? What are signs of language delay or disorder? [Summary generated by Claude-3-Haiku-200k - we refer the reader to the full article in PDF format for a complete response] This article provides essential information to parents about communication disorders in children. It answers key questions, such as the revealing signs of potential disorders, the differentiation between language difficulties and learning disorders, and the available resources/therapies. Communication disorders can take various forms and affect up to one-quarter of children under 5 years old. They may manifest as language delays or articulation disorders and are often linked to risk factors such as prematurity, low birth weight, or genetic disorders. Known developmental milestones help identify early signs of difficulties, such as lack of reactivity or babbling before 12 months. Language delays, grammatical errors, reduced intelligibility, or limited social interactions in young children can also be warning signals. Differentiating between language difficulties and learning disorders relies on specific characteristics. Speech sound disorders, language delays, and developmental language disorder are distinct categories that may coexist with specific learning disorders like dyslexia or dyscalculia. Parents play a crucial role in supporting their child's communication development. Strategies like social object play, following interests, or narrating actions can enhance language skills in a positive and stimulating environment. Professional resources are also available for children with confirmed delays or disorders. In conclusion, this article provides parents with important guidelines to identify early signs of difficulties and implement appropriate support, in collaboration with qualified professionals.

Arithmetic skills in kindergarten children with developmental language disorders

A heated debate has been ongoing regarding the potential overlap in language disorders exhibited by children with developmental language disorder (DLD) and those with autism spectrum disorder plus language impairment (ALI). This study compared the production of Chinese negative structures by these two populations, alongside typically developing age-matched (TDA) children. Nineteen children with DLD, thirty-two children with ALI and twenty-eight TDA children participated in a video task and a game task on two Chinese negative structures (Structure B: V-bu-C; Structure M: mei-V-C). The results reflected a general resemblance between the two groups (DLD vs. ALI) in their most prevalent non-target responses in the two structures. However, children with ALI evinced impairment in both structures, while children with DLD only presented significantly lower-than-TDA performance in Structure M. Moreover, only the ALI group performed better in the game task than in the video task when producing Structure B, and the DLD and ALI groups produced some distinctive non-target responses. The findings indicate that the DLD group’s poor performance may be related to the impairment in the assignment of negative scope and the ALI’s difficulties may be attributed to the deficits in pragmatics. This study supports the idea that while children with DLD and children with ALI share some common symptoms in language, their language difficulties may result from different impairments. Labels should not be attached to children without an in-depth analysis of children’s responses in language assessments.

Individuals with specific learning disorders often leave school with fewer qualifications and mostly become unemployed or economically inactive, if they are not sufficiently supported. In addition, they face numerous obstacles and challenges in their life due to their disability. Therefore, it is important to provide appropriate support to overcome their barriers in learning and to succeed in their lives. There is no sufficient expertise and services currently available in Sri Lanka to support individuals with specific learning disabilities effectively. Efforts to support the education of individuals with specific learning disabilities are underlined in the Czech Education Act and it can be identified that there are many effective services and facilities available for students with learning disabilities in the Czech Republic, compared to Sri Lanka. Consequently, this review article attempts to examine the health and special educational facilities and supportive services provided for individuals with specific learning disorders in Czech Republic and Sri Lanka with the intention of providing many valid recommendations for Sri Lanka to develop and improve the healthcare and special education systems for individuals with learning disabilities.

Approximately 9.9 % of children present with difficulties in language development (DLD), 7.6 % without serious additional impairments and 2.3 % associated with languagerelevant comorbidities, e.g., hearing loss. Notably, in a consensus statement by experts in German-speaking countries, in the guideline presented here, and further in this article, all of these disorders are referred to as "developmental language disorders" (DLD), whereas the international consortium CATALISE only refers to those without comorbidities as DLD. DLDs are among the most commonly treated childhood disorders and, if persistent, often reduce educational and socio-economic outcome. Children in their third year of life with developmental language delay (late talkers, LT) are at risk of a later DLD. This German interdisciplinary clinical practice guideline reflects current knowledge regarding evidence-based interventions for developmental language delay and disorders. A systematic literature review was conducted on the effectiveness of interventions for DLD. The guideline recommends parent training (Hedges g = 0.38 to 0.82) for LTs with expressive language delay, language therapy (Cohen's d = -0.20 to 0.90) for LTs with additional receptive language delay or further DLD risk factors, phonological or integrated phonological treatment methods (Cohen's d = 0.89 to 1.04) for phonological speech sound disorders (SSDs), a motor approach for isolated phonetic SSDs (non-DLD), and for lexical-semantic and morpho-syntactic impairments combinations of implicit and explicit intervention approaches (including input enrichment, modeling techniques, elicitation methods, creation of production opportunities, metalinguistic- approaches, visualizations; Cohen's d = 0.89-1.04). Recom mendations were also made for DLD associated with pragmatic-communicative impairment, bi-/ multilingualism, hearing loss, intellectual disability, autism-spectrum disorders, selective mutism, language- relevant syndromes or multiple disabilities, and for intensive inpatient language rehabilitation. Early parent- and child-centered speech and language intervention implementing evidence-based intervention approaches, frequency, and settings, combined with educational language support, can improve the effectiveness of management of developmental language delay and disorders.

Associations Between Key Language-Related Measures in Typically Developing School-Age Children

Contents: W.J.M. Levelt, Preface. L. Verhoeven, H. van Balkom, Introduction: Developmental Language Disorders: Classification, Assessment, and Intervention. Part I: Etiology. N. Botting, G. Conti-Ramsden, Characteristics of Children With Specific Language Impairment. J. Reilly, J. Weckerly, B. Wulfeck, Neuroplasticity and Development: The Acquisition of Morphosyntax in Children With Early Focal Lesions and Children With Specific Language Impairment. P.H. Been, F. Zwarts, Language Disorders Across Modalities: The Case of Developmental Dyslexia. P.H.T. Leppanen, H. Lyytinen, N. Choudbury, A.A. Benasich, Neuroimaging Measures in the Study of Specific Language Impairment. R.B. Gillam, L.M. Hoffman, Information Processing in Children With Specific Language Impairment. S. Goorhuis-Brouwer, F. Coster, H. Nakken, H.L. Spelberg, Environmental Factors in Developmental Language Disorders. Part II: Typology. B. Maassen, Speech Output Disorders. J. Katz, K. Tillery, Central Auditory Processing. L.B. Leonard, P. Deevy, Lexical Deficits in Specific Language Impairment. D. Ravid, R. Levie, G.A. Ben-Zvi, Morphological Disorders. J. de Jong, Grammatical Impairment: An Overview and a Sketch of Dutch. H. van Balkom, L. Verhoeven, Pragmatic Disability in Children With Specific Language Impairments. Part III: Assessment and Intervention. D.V.M. Bishop, Specific Language Impairment: Diagnostic Dilemmas. P. van Geert, A Dynamic Systems Approach to Diagnostic Measurement of SLI. H. de Ridder, H. van der Stege, Early Detection of Developmental Language Disorders. S.F. Warren, P.J. Yoder, Early Intervention for Young Children With Language Impairments. L. Verhoeven, E. Segers, Benefits of Speech Manipulation for Children With Language Disorders. J. Law, The Close Association Between Classification and Intervention for Children With Primary Language Impairments.

Data from a prospective longitudinal study on the development of children born at biological and psychosocial risk were utilised to examine language and learning abilities of 320 children at ages 4.5 and 8 years. Following the research criteria of the ICD-10, specific developmental disorders of speech and language and specific developmental disorders of scholastic skills were diagnosed. Data were also provided for a clinical and general low achievement group according to less stringent criteria. Frequencies in the risk population were low for specific disorders (ICD-10) (0.6%-3.7% depending on age and type of disorder). Higher frequencies were found when a clinical definition (0.6%-13.6%) or overall low achievement score (0.6%-18.6%) was chosen. The impact of well-documented organic and psychosocial risks was analysed. Organic risk affected language abilities at 4.5 years of age but neither language nor learning abilities at 8 years of age. Psychosocial aspects of a child's environment proved to be associated with both specific language and learning abilities. Stability of language disorders, association between language and reading/spelling disorders as well as gender effects were investigated.

To assess the prevalence of elementary visuospatial perception (EVSP) deficit in children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Using a screening test designed and validated to measure dorsal EVSP ability, 168 children (122 males, 46 females; mean age 10y [SD 1y 10mo], range 4y 8mo-16y 4mo) diagnosed with developmental coordination disorder (DCD), specific learning disorder (SLD), attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), and/or oral language disorder were compared with a group of 184 typically developing children. We also tested 14 children with binocular vision dysfunction and no neurodevelopmental disorder. Children with SLD scored below the interquartile range of typically developing children as frequently (59%) as children with DCD, but only 5% were severely impaired (i.e. scored as outliers). Children with DCD were the most severely impaired (22% of outliers), even more so when they exhibited a co-occuring disorder. Children with language disorder and those with binocular vision dysfunction scored similarly to the group of typically developing children. These results confirm the importance of assessing EVSP in the clinical evaluation of children with neurodevelopmental disorders, in particular those presenting with DCD or SLD. What this paper adds More than half of children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) scored below the normal interquartile range on the elementary visuospatial perception (EVSP) test. More than half of children with specific learning disorder (SLD) scored below the normal interquartile range on the EVSP test. Twenty-two percent of children with DCD performed as outliers on the EVSP test. Children with language disorder and those with binocular vision dysfunction scored similarly to typically developing children.

In this study, the term “learning disablity” refers to specific developmental language disorders. Children with language disorders do not perform as well on motor coordination tests compared to children with normal speech. The purpose of this study was to investigate the motor skill level of children with developmental language disorders and to test the effect of three different training programs on these skills. The subjects were 22 elementary special school children with developmental language disorders who were divided into three groups and tested using the nonrandomized control group pretest-posttest design. Training programs were conducted twice weekly for 10 weeks. One group received psychomotor training, the second, body image training, and the control group followed the regular physical education program. The subjects were tested before and after participation in the training programs using a revised version of the Test of Motor Impairment (TOMI). Results indicated that 82% of these children clearly had a motor problem, consisting to a large extent in static balance difficulties. Overall improvement was 54% in the psychomotor training group; 26% for the body image training group; and 41% in the regular physical education group. It is concluded that the motor skills of children with specific developmental language disorders can be improved to a certain degree by intensified training programs.

MethodsThirty-three children with diagnosed specific developmental disorders of speech and language and 33 healthy controls matched for age and gender were compared based on their cognitive performance. In this study, a German test for cognitive functions in preschoolers (KET-KID) and a test for nonverbal intellectual abilities (CPM) were used. The aim of the study was to determine possible comorbid disabilities in children with specific developmental disorders of speech and language.ResultsHaving normal nonverbal intellectual abilities, the children with specific developmental disorders of speech and language showed significant impairments in articulation, auditory memory, spatial perception, and visual construction compared with the controls.ConclusionChildren with specific developmental disorders of speech and language show an increased risk for impairment in other cognitive domains. Delayed lateralization development related to cerebral maturation, as well as the associated graphomotor deficits, could have consequences for school performance. Therefore, these children should be tested as early as possible and should receive additional support if required.

The Adverse Effects of a Language Disorder

Developmental Language Disorder (DLD), previously known as Specific Language Impairment (SLI), is a common developmental disorder that affects both preschool and school aged children. The language characteristics of children with DLD vary considerably with the main challenge being the learning of language structures and morphosyntactic and lexical limitations (Leonard, 2014). Research has shown that when it comes to bilinguals with language deficits caution should be taken, since they may arise from impairment due to DLD but can also be caused by insufficient exposure to and limited knowledge of the target language (Reilly, Losh, Bellugi, & Wulfeck, 2004). A method that has often been used to investigate the language features of monolingual and monolingual children with DLD is to examine their narrative abilities, since narratives provide a quasi-naturalistic measure of children’s spontaneous language and reflect distinctive structural linguistic changes through childhood and adolescence. The objective of this paper is to conduct a systematic review of recent studies on the narrative skills of monolingual and bilingual pre-school and primary school children with DLD. Therefore, it focuses on 13 research articles published since 2010 until present that met the inclusion criteria set in this review. The selected studies fell under three main areas: 1) studies assessing the narrative skills of monolingual children with DLD/SLI, 2) studies comparing bilingual children of typical development and bilinguals with DLD/SLI and 3) studies comparing monolingual and bilingual children with DLD/SLI. The majority of studies reported significant differences in the narrative performance between monolinguals with and without DLD and between bilinguals with and without DLD. No significant difference is observed in the performance between monolinguals and bilinguals of typical language development, yet performance differences are noted between monolinguals with DLD and bilinguals with the same language impairment. Microstructure seems to be greatly affected by DLD with macrostructure being affected the less.

Background and aims Recent research indicates that children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) often also score lower than their peers with typical development (TD) on tasks testing nonverbal executive functioning (EF). This study investigated whether there is evidence that children with DLD use linguistic and EF resources to support their lexical and syntactic development. Three questions were addressed: (1) How do children with DLD develop in the domains of lexicon and syntax, and how does their development compare to TD controls? (2) To what extent do children with DLD show reciprocal relations between lexical and syntactic skills, and how does this compare to TD controls? (3) Is EF ability related to DLD children’s lexical and syntactic skills, and how does this compare to TD controls? Methods Data from 117 children (N DLD = 78; N TD = 39) were collected three times with yearly intervals. At time 1, the children were 5 or 6 years old. Standardized receptive vocabulary and sentence repetition tests measured lexicon and syntax, respectively. Nonverbal EF tasks tested selective attention, interference control and working memory. Cross-lagged analyses were conducted to determine the direction of relationships. Results Both groups showed stable lexical and syntactic growth. In children with DLD, but not in TD controls, syntactic skills predicted lexical skills. In the DLD group, EF predicted lexical skills. Reversely, in the TD group, lexical skills predicted EF. Conclusions The results of this study are consistent with the hypothesis that the lexical development of children with DLD is supported by both their verbal abilities in the domain of syntax and their nonverbal EF abilities. Implications Interventions that improve the syntactic and EF abilities of children with DLD may have spreading effects and positively impact on word learning by children with DLD.