Search

Background: In 2016–17 an important consensus was established regarding the use of the diagnostic label 'developmental language disorder' (DLD) to describe children with a persistent language problem having a functional impact on communication or learning and in the absence of any other biomedical condition. Despite this consensus, past research has revealed ongoing uncertainty regarding when to use the DLD label among speech–language pathologists (SLPs). Aims: In response to this uncertainty, a survey of SLPs was conducted aimed at investigating which types of clinical language profiles, and specific assessment results, were viewed as warranting the diagnostic label DLD. Methods & Procedures: SLPs were presented with 10 childhood language profiles and assessment results. Participants reviewed each case and described if they felt a diagnosis of DLD was warranted, which presented symptoms were consistent/inconsistent with DLD and if further information/testing was desired. Additionally, participants provided details regarding their personal diagnostic processes. Outcomes & Results: Results indicated a general consensus among SLPs as to when the DLD label should be applied. However, free‐text responses demonstrated considerable variation between clinicians regarding symptoms of importance, points of contention/confusion in language profiles and minimal assessment results viewed as necessary in the diagnostic process. Conclusions & Implications: This detailed look at the assessment/diagnostic process for DLD provides valuable insight into how to build further practice consistency in the provision of the diagnostic label DLD, especially in cases of complex language profiles and assessment results. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: The label DLD should be used as a diagnostic label to describe children with persistent language problems having a functional impact on communication or learning and in the absence of any biomedical condition. However, in current clinical practice, actual use of the label is inconsistent and SLPs face a number of challenges in diagnosing DLD. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge: This investigation provides clarity regarding which complexities in paediatric language profiles are most challenging for SLPs when determining if a child does/does not have DLD. Additionally, details regarding current assessment beliefs and practices are explored. What are the practical and clinical implications of this work?: By providing a detailed look at the diagnostic processes of practising SLPs, valuable insight is provided into how to build further practice consistency and confidence in the provision of the diagnostic label DLD, especially in cases of complex language profiles and assessment results. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background & Aims: Given that standardized language measures alone are inadequate for identifying functionally defined developmental language disorder (fDLD), this study investigated whether non‐linguistic cognitive abilities (procedural learning, motor functions, executive attention, processing speed) can increase the prediction accuracy of fDLD in children in linguistically diverse settings. Methods & Procedures: We examined non‐linguistic cognitive abilities in mono‐ and bilingual school‐aged children (ages 8–12) with and without fDLD. Typically developing (TD) children (14 monolinguals, 12 bilinguals) and children with fDLD (28 monolinguals, 12 bilinguals) completed tasks measuring motor functions, procedural learning, executive attention and processing speed. Children were assigned as fDLD based on parental or professional concerns regarding children's daily language functioning. If no concerns were present, children were assigned as TD. Standardized English scores, non‐verbal IQ scores and years of maternal education were also obtained. Likelihood ratios were used to examine how well each measure separated the fDLD versus TD groups. A binary logistic regression was used to test whether combined measures enhanced the prediction of identifying fDLD status. Outcomes & Results: A combination of linguistic and non‐linguistic measures provided the best distinction between fDLD and TD for both mono‐ and bilingual groups. For monolingual children, the combined measures include English language scores, functional motor abilities and processing speed, whereas for bilinguals, the combined measures include English language scores and procedural learning. Conclusions & Implications: A combination of non‐linguistic and linguistic measures significantly improved the distinction between fDLD and TD for both mono‐ and bilingual groups. This study supports the possibility of using non‐linguistic cognitive measures to identify fDLD in linguistically diverse settings. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: Given that standardized English language measures may fail to identify functional language disorder, we examined whether supplementing English language measures with non‐linguistic cognitive tasks could resolve the problem. Our study is based on the hypothesis that non‐linguistic cognitive abilities contribute to language processing and learning. This is further supported by previous findings that children with language disorder exhibit non‐linguistic cognitive deficits. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: The results indicated that a combination of linguistic and non‐linguistic cognitive abilities increased the prediction of functional language disorder in both mono‐ and bilingual children. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This study supports the possibility of using non‐linguistic cognitive measures to identify the risk of language disorder in linguistically diverse settings. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The involvement of speech and language therapists (SLTs) within paediatric palliative care (PPC) settings has been recognized within the extant literature. However, there is little understanding of SLT's specific roles and practices when working with this vulnerable cohort of children and their families. As part of a larger body of work to develop consensus‐based recommendations for SLTs working in PPC, it is important to investigate demographic and caseload characteristics. Aims: This exploratory study aimed to gather previously undocumented international demographic data pertaining to SLT service provision, caseload and training in PPC. Additionally, it sought to ascertain the current treatment and assessment approaches of SLTs, and if variations exist in beliefs and practices. Methods & Procedures: An anonymous cross‐sectional survey was designed and reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E‐Surveys (CHERRIES). The online survey consisted of 40 items spanning four domains: (1) demographic information, (2) caseload information, (3) service provision and (4) training and education. SLTs from Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the UK, Ireland and the United States were recruited using a purposive snowball sampling approach. Descriptive analysis of closed‐ended survey responses and content analysis of open‐ended responses are presented. Outcomes & Results: A total of 52 respondents completed the survey. SLTs worked in a variety of PPC settings, with patients of varying age and disease groups. Over 50% of participants reported working in PPC for ≤ 4 years. Genetic disorders (34%), oncology (27%) and neurological conditions (21%) made up a significant portion of respondents' caseloads. Reported treatments and assessment approaches used by SLTs are not unique to a PPC population. Barriers and enablers for practice were identified. A portion of participants did not feel trained and prepared to assess (19.2%) or treat (15.4%) PPC clients. Conclusions & Implications: This study confirms that SLTs internationally have a role in the management of communication and swallowing impairments in a PPC context. However, whether current training and resources adequately support SLTs in this role remains questionable. This paper helps to provide SLTs, administrators, professional associations and tertiary institutions with foundational data to help inform workforce planning, advocacy efforts and training priorities. What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subjectThe published multidisciplinary literature has identified that SLTs have a role in PPC. However, there has been no targeted research investigating the professional characteristics of clinicians in this context, nor any detailed information regarding associated clinician beliefs or management approaches.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeThis study is a snapshot of attributes, practice patterns and beliefs of SLTs who work with a PPC population. It highlights SLT perspectives of education and training, as well as meta‐perceptions of themselves within the multidisciplinary team.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?Data presented in this paper will help to enable SLTs, organizations and associations to augment service provision and determine future professional development priorities within the field of PPC. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The body of literature on narratives of bilingual children with and without specific language impairment (SLI) is growing. However, little is known about the narrative abilities of bilingual preschool children with SLI and their patterns of growth. Aims To determine the similarities and differences in narrative abilities between preschoolers with and without SLI who are either monolingual or bilingual at two time points. Methods & Procedures Forty children completed a narrative retell task in English at two test points. The mean ages were 52 and 58 months at Times 1 and 2, respectively. We examined performance on measures of narrative macrostructure (narrative information) and microstructure (sentence length, number of different words, verb accuracy, first mentions) in monolingual and bilingual children with and without SLI. The bilingual children were from diverse first-language backgrounds and all spoke English most of the time. Outcomes & Results A series of repeated-measures analyses of variance was used with language ability (typical development or SLI) and bilingual status (monolingual versus bilingual) as the between-subjects factors and time (Times 1 or 2) as the within-subjects factor. Results indicated a significant main effect of time for four measures (i.e., Information Score, lexical diversity, sentence length and verb accuracy). The between-subjects analyses indicated a significant difference between the typically developing children and the children with SLI in all measures and a significant difference between monolingual and bilingual children for verb accuracy only. Conclusions & Implications This study showed that all four groups of children showed growth over a 6-month period and that bilingual children exposed predominantly to English in the home performed similarly to their monolingual peers in measures of narrative information, sentence length, number of different words and first mentions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]