Search

Background: There is extremely limited population‐based research on social (pragmatic) communication disorder (SCD). Population‐based samples have the potential to better characterize the SCD phenotype by mitigating confounds and biases that are typical of convenience and clinical samples. Aims: The aims of this preliminary epidemiologic study were to advance our understanding of the SCD phenotype relative to developmental language disorder (DLD), obtain an estimate of prevalence, identify risk factors and lay the groundwork for future population level research of SCD. Methods & Procedures: We analysed existing data from the EpiSLI Database to examine social communication skills in 393 8th grade (13–14 years) children with and without a history of DLD. The primary measure used to evaluate SCD was the Children's Communication Checklist (CCC‐2). Two case definitions of SCD reflecting DSM‐5 criteria were examined. Both definitions involved significant pragmatic impairment, employing a commonly adopted clinical cut‐point of 1.5 SD. In one case, pragmatic deficits could occur along with structural language deficits and, in the other case (established using principal component analysis), pragmatic and social skills were disproportionately lower than structural language abilities. Outcomes & Results: When using the first case definition, SCD was much more common in children with a history of DLD than without DLD and history of language disorder at kindergarten was a significant risk factor for SCD in adolescence. However, it is important to note that SCD could be found in children with no prior deficits in other aspects of language. When the second definition was employed, SCD was equally distributed across children with and without a history of DLD. Male sex was a significant risk factor using this case definition of SCD. The estimated prevalence of SCD ranged from 7% (SE = 1.5%) to 11% (SE = 1.7%), acknowledging that prevalence depends on the cut‐point selected to determine communication disorder. Conclusions & Implications: These findings contribute to our understanding of the association between SCD and DLD by recognizing varying profiles of pragmatic and social communication difficulties, which in turn may help refine our diagnostic categories. Preliminary prevalence estimates of SCD can serve as an initial guidepost for identification and planning for intervention services for this condition. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: There is considerable debate about the diagnostic category of SCD and its relation to other neurodevelopmental disorders. What this study adds to existing knowledge: Using data from a US‐based epidemiologic sample of DLD, this study offers new information about the association between SCD and DLD, provides preliminary estimates of SCD prevalence, and identifies risk factors for SCD. Clinical implications of this study: Improved understanding of possible profiles of pragmatic and social communication deficits will help to clarify diagnostic categories and preliminary prevalence estimates may assist with ensuring availability of adequate intervention services. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This study's purpose was to determine the prevalence of physical, mental, and developmental health conditions among US children and assess the association with urban versus rural residence. Methods: Bivariate/multivariable analyses were conducted with cross‐sectional data for children aged 0‐17 years (N = 71,811) from the 2016‐2017 National Survey of Children's Health. Prevalence estimates of excellent/very good health were derived from parents' qualitative judgments. Parent‐reported health conditions were aggregated by condition type (physical, mental, developmental). Prevalence was determined for condition type and severity. Adjusted risk ratios assessed the effect of residence on having physical, mental, or developmental conditions. Results: Among rural children in the general population, we found lower crude rates of excellent/very good overall health and higher rates of ≥1 physical condition(s) and ≥1 mental condition(s), as well as these 2 conditions in combination with ≥1 developmental condition(s). Rural children in the general population were also more likely to have physical and mental conditions that parents rated as moderate/severe in unadjusted analyses. To a lesser extent, these differences held true for the children with special health care needs. Risk ratios for rural residence were largely nonsignificant in adjusted analyses. Conclusions: While rural children had lower crude rates of parent‐reported excellent/very good health and higher crude rates of parent‐reported or doctor‐diagnosed physical and mental health conditions compared to urban children, the same pattern of urban‐rural differentials was not evident in the adjusted analyses. Compositional and contextual differences in the urban/rural populations suggest that social determinants of health may have accounted for rate disparities in child health conditions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study was designed to examine the effects of literacy-based behavioural interventions (Bucholz et al., 2008) to decrease acts of physical aggression with kindergarten and first grade students. The study used a multiple baseline design across three participants. The results showed a decrease in acts of physical aggression by students with significant developmental delays and autism spectrum disorders as a result of the literacy-based behavioural interventions (LBBI). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study reviews recent research related to the neurobiology of Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASDs) and provides an empirical analysis of current assessment practices. Data were collected through a survey of 117 school psychologists. The Childhood Autism Rating Scale (CARS), Gilliam Autism Rating Scale (GARS), and Gilliam Asperger's Disorder Scale (GADS) were the most frequently used measures. Among the less popular, but more intensive instruments, the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule (ADOS) appears to be gaining popularity within school-based evaluations. Generally, respondents approached the assessment of ASDs from a traditional psychoeducational perspective and reported the use of a very narrow range of ASD-specific instruments. Concerns are raised regarding the inconsistent inclusion of developmental questionnaires, parent/guardian interviews, and medical professionals in the ASD evaluation process. Implications for practice and the training of school psychologists are discussed. © 2008 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]