Search

Background: Individuals with developmental language disorder or Williams syndrome are reported to use more gestures than individuals with typical development. However, these two groups differ considerably in visuospatial and language skills, two skills that are hypothesized to shape gesture rate. Aims: We first examined whether children with both developmental language disorder and children Williams syndrome do indeed use more gestures. Our second aim was to disentangle the role of vocabulary and visuospatial skills in the use of supplementary gestures (i.e., containing unique information). To account for participant heterogeneity, analyses included both group comparisons and vocabulary and visuospatial skills at an individual level. As a third aim, the role of visuospatial skills was further examined in relation to gestures containing spatial content. Methods & Procedures: In a cross‐sectional group design, three participant groups watched and then retold a cartoon: children with typical development (n = 25), children with developmental language disorder (n = 25) and children/young people with Williams syndrome (n = 14). Their narrations were transcribed and hand gestures were coded based on gesture–speech integration (redundant, adds information to particular lexical items, gives information that is entirely absent from speech) and spatial content. Participants' expressive vocabulary and visuospatial skills were measured. Outcomes & Results: Between‐group comparisons showed that individuals with developmental language disorder or Williams syndrome did indeed use more gestures. Poisson loglinear modelling demonstrated that a relative higher use of supplementary gestures was determined by lower expressive vocabulary skills. Neither the group distinction nor visuospatial skills shaped the supplementary gesture rate nor spatial gesture rate. Conclusions & Implications: Regardless of neurodevelopmental condition or typical development, a higher use of supplementary gestures was influenced by expressive vocabulary skills. Children with lower vocabulary skills spontaneously capitalized on the multimodality of communication to express constituents that were not present in their verbal speech. This finding is a promising starting point for future gesture intervention studies examining whether implicit modelling of gesture use can encourage gestures even more in these children and if this allows them to achieve higher linguistic complexity. On a methodological note, the observed intra‐group skill variability demonstrates that group comparisons need to be complemented with correlational measures accounting for skills at an individual level. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Children with developmental language disorder and children with Williams syndrome are more inclined to use gestures than typically developing children. Research conducted in adults with typical development points towards the role of lexical and visuospatial skills in gesture use, but it is unclear how these skills shape gesture use in children with atypical development. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study compares the rate of gestures that convey meaning that is not expressed in speech between the three aforementioned populations. Novel is the inclusion of the group distinction, individual lexical skills, and visuospatial skills in one encompassing statistical model. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: The inclination to use gestures that replace speech is related to lexical skills. Visuospatial skills do not seem to play a role and should not be considered as a factor when thinking about gesture intervention. Understanding how gestures relate to specific skills is a first step to understanding how gesture interventions can bolster language production. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The majority of children with cerebral palsy (CP) experience challenges in functional communication from a young age. A pivotal aspect of functional communication is language comprehension. A variety of classification systems and questionnaires are available to classify and describe functional communication skills in children with CP. A better understanding of the convergent validity of (subsections of) these tools, as well as their relationship with spoken language comprehension, will be valuable in both clinical practice and research. Aims: To investigate the convergent validity of (subsections of) functional communication tools and the relationship with spoken language comprehension in children with CP. Methods & Procedures: Cross‐sectional data on 138 children were subdivided into three developmental stages based on (Dutch) educational phases: ages 18 months–3;11y (n = 59), 4;0–5;11 years (n = 37) and 6;0–8;11 years (n = 42). The following functional communication tools were used to classify and describe functional communication: Communication Function Classification System (CFCS), subscales of the Caregivers Priorities and Child Health Index of Life with Disabilities—Dutch Version (CPCHILD‐DV) and the Focus on Communication Under Six‐34 (FOCUS‐34) questionnaire. Spoken language comprehension was assessed with the Computer‐Based instrument for Low motor Language Testing (C‐BiLLT). Correlations between the functional communication tools, and with the C‐BiLLT, were calculated using Pearson's and Spearman's correlation coefficients. It was hypothesized a priori that correlations of at least 0.60 suggest good convergent validity. Outcomes & Results: At all developmental stages, a significant ordered decreasing tendency of communication outcomes was found across CFCS levels; lower CFCS levels were associated with lower scores on the CPCHILD‐DV and FOCUS‐34, and with a lower level of spoken language comprehension (C‐BiLLT). Correlation coefficients of the functional communication tools exceeded 0.60 at all developmental stages. Correlations between C‐BiLLT raw scores and the functional communication tools varied between 0.351 and 0.591 at developmental stage 18 months–3;11 years, between 0.781 and 0.897 at developmental stage 4;0–5;11 years, and between 0.635 and 0.659 at developmental stage 6;0–8;11 years. Conclusions & Implications: The functional communication tools assessed in this study showed convergent validity at all developmental stages. The CFCS, currently most widely used in paediatric rehabilitation, is adequate in the classification of functional communication. However, for more detailed clinical goal setting and evaluation of change in functional communication, the additional use of FOCUS‐34 or CPCHILD‐DV is recommended. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: A range of functional communication tools are available that help describe and classify functional communication in children with CP. These include the CFCS, subsections of CPCHILD‐DV and FOCUS‐34. The CFCS classifies functional communication in daily life with familiar and unfamiliar partners. Specific subsections of the CPCHILD‐DV and FOCUS‐34 include items that pertain to communicative participation. The innovative C‐BiLLT provides a standardized method to assess spoken language comprehension in children with CP and significant motor impairments. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: In the present study, convergent validity was confirmed between CFCS and specific subsections of the CPCHILD‐DV and FOCUS‐34. Correlations between these functional communication tools and the C‐BiLLT were moderate to strong. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: For clinical and research purposes (for instance, accurate prescription of augmentative and alternative communication—AAC), healthcare and educational professionals together with parents need to know how functional communication tools converge and how functional communication levels relate to the comprehension of spoken language. The CFCS provides a valid classification of functional communication abilities in children with CP. However, to measure change in functional communication and to evaluate treatment outcomes, use of additional functional communication tools such as the CPCHILD‐DV and FOCUS‐34 is recommended. When discrepancies are found between communicative abilities and spoken language comprehension, it is strongly recommended that valid tools are used in a more detailed examination of the child's spoken language comprehension skills and functional communication. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is limited evidence concerning the longer term language, literacy and cognitive skills of young adults with developmental language disorder (DLD). Studies that exist suggest continuing difficulties with language and reading, but abilities may change over time. Aims: This study aimed to examine the language, literacy and cognitive skills of young adults with and without DLD. Methods & Procedures: Data were used from the Manchester Language Study data set which was collected from a group of young adults with DLD (recruited originally at 7 years of age from language units—specialist educational resource bases). Participants were assessed on their language, literacy and cognitive functioning when they were aged 24. A comparison group of age‐matched peers (AMPs; also 24 years old) were also assessed. For language and cognition, change in scores between 16 and 24 years was also available for analysis. Finally, self‐rated measures of literacy difficulties were taken at 24 years for functional reading and writing. Outcome & Results: The results indicate that the young people with DLD in this sample continue to perform more poorly as a group on formal oral and written language tests. A small but significant minority of young adults with DLD also report functional reading and writing difficulties compared with AMPs despite reporting reading as often as their peer group. Compared with scores at 16 years of age, this subsample now appears to show slightly less risk of non‐verbal IQ difficulties, showing small but significant 'catch‐up' to AMPs. Conclusions & Implications: These preliminary data suggest that at least some individuals with DLD experience marked linguistic difficulties in adulthood, and that the pathways of language, literacy and cognition are not entirely parallel for this group. Continued support and awareness of challenges for young adults with DLD may be useful. What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subjectIt is known that DLD is long term and persists into adulthood. There has recently been a body of work reporting on the well‐being of this population, as well as their employment, financial status and driving ability. However, there is very little information about language, literacy and cognitive skills beyond school age.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis study presents data on language, literacy and cognition from a large cohort of young adults with DLD and their AMPs. In this sample, a large proportion of participants score low on language, with fewer scoring as impaired on literacy and cognition. A significant minority reports difficulties in functional reading. Preliminary analysis appears to suggest that while language development remains depressed, non‐verbal cognitive skills show some catch up over time.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?Increased awareness and continued support for language, literacy and cognition may be useful for young adults with DLD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background There is increasing interest in examining the perspectives of parents of children with special educational needs (SEN). Exploring the view of parents of a child with language impairment (LI) or autism spectrum disorder (ASD) is particularly important because of their high prevalence, at over 30% of children with SEN in England, and the increasing evidence of overlapping profiles of their needs. Aims To examine the similarities and differences between the perspectives of parents of children with LI or ASD on three issues: (1) their child's educational progress, and their behavioural, emotional and social development; (2) the provision made to support their child's education and meet their SEN; and (3) their own involvement in decision-making about provision for their child. Methods & Procedures The parents of 129 children with LI ( n = 76) or ASD ( n = 53) were interviewed using a semi-structured protocol that gathered both quantitative data (parent ratings) and qualitative, in-depth explorations of their perspectives. Outcomes & Results There were no significant differences between the perspectives of parents of children with LI and parents of children with ASD with respect to their child's educational progress; the provision made to meet their child's educational needs; or their involvement in decision-making during the statutory assessment procedure, including the determination of a statement of SEN, and the current provision made by their child's school. Both parent groups were generally positive about these but parents of children with ASD were more concerned about their child's peer relationships. Parents whose child attended a mainstream school with a specialist resource tended to be more positive about the provision made than parents whose child was included individually into a mainstream school. Conclusions & Implications Although previous research indicates that parents of children with ASD are overrepresented among those who express dissatisfaction with the provision made to meet their child's needs, this study indicates high levels of satisfaction and overlap between the perspectives of parents of children with LI or ASD regarding their child's educational progress and their own involvement in decision-making about the child's provision. The findings indicate the importance for policy and practice of focusing on identified needs rather than diagnostic category; and the importance of practitioners and administrators engaging meaningfully with parents in collaborative decision-making. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]