The expressive vocabulary of children with Down Syndrome (DS) is generally measured with parental reports, such as the Communicative Development Inventory (CDI), given that standardized tests for assessing vocabulary levels may be too difficult for most young children with DS. The CDI provides important insight into the parents’ perception of their child’s vocabulary development. The CDI has proven to be a valid measurement of expressive vocabulary, spoken and gestural, in typical and atypical populations. The validity in children with DS is not well established and signed vocabulary is often not included. This longitudinal study examined the concurrent and predictive validity of the Dutch version of the CDI (N-CDI) in children with DS between 2;0 and 7;6 years old to assess spoken and signed vocabulary. N-CDI scores were assessed on strength of association with mental age,an expressive vocabulary test and spontaneous language analyses in a play setting with parents at T1 and T2 (1.5 years later), and a therapy setting with speech language pathologists at T1. The results of the present study show that the N-CDI is a valuable and valid measurement of expressive vocabulary in children with DS. Strengths and weaknesses of several assessment methods for expressive vocabulary are discussed.
DOCUMENT
Practical experience and research reveal generic spoken language benefits after cochlear implantation. However, systematic research on specific language domains and error analyses are required to probe sub-skills. Moreover, the effect of predictive factors on distinct language domains is unknown. In this study, outcomes of 70 school-aged children with cochlear implants were compared with hearing peers. Approximately half of the children with cochlear implants achieved age-adequate language levels. Results did not reveal systematic strong or weak language domains. Error analyses showed difficulties with morphological and syntactic rules and inefficient narrative skills. Children without additional disabilities who received early intervention were raised with one spoken language, and used a second cochlear implant or contralateral hearing aid were more likely to present good language skills.
DOCUMENT
Background: Early and effective treatment for children with developmental language disorder (DLD) is important. Although a growing body of research shows the effects of interventions at the group level, clinicians observe large individual differences in language growth, and differences in outcomes across language domains. A systematic understanding of how child characteristics contribute to changes in language skills is still lacking. Aims: To assess changes in the language domains: expressive morphosyntax; receptive and expressive vocabulary; and comprehension, in children in special needs education for DLD. To explore if differences in language gains between children are related to child characteristics: language profile; severity of the disorder; being raised mono- or multilingually; and cognitive ability. Methods & Procedures: We extracted data from school records of 154 children (4–6 years old) in special needs education offering a language and communication-stimulating educational environment, including speech and language therapy. Changes in language were measured by comparing the scores on standardized language tests at the beginning and the end of a school year. Next, we related language change to language profile (receptive–expressive versus expressive-only disorders), severity (initial scores), growing up mono- and multilingually, and children’s reported non-verbal IQ scores. Outcomes&Results: Overall, the children showed significant improvements in expressive morphosyntax, expressive vocabulary and language comprehension. Baseline scores and gains were lowest for expressive morphosyntax. Differences in language gains between children with receptive–expressive disorders and expressive-only disorders were not significant. There was more improvement in children with lower initial scores. There were no differences between mono- and multilingual children, except for expressive vocabulary. There was no evidence of a relation between non-verbal IQ scores and language growth. Conclusions & Implications: Children with DLD in special needs education showed gains in language performance during one school year. There was, however, little change in morphosyntactic scores, which supports previous studies concluding that poor morphosyntax is a persistent characteristic of DLD. Our results indicate that it is important to include all children with DLD in intervention: children with receptive–expressive and expressive disorders; monoand multilingual children, and children with high, average and low non-verbal IQ scores. We did not find negative relations between these child factors and changes in language skills.
LINK
