Search

Aim To explore family-reported neurodevelopmental functioning and quality of life in 6-year-olds who had screened positive for developmental language disorder at age 2.5 years. Methods Parents of 85 6-year-old children completed questionnaires about child neurodevelopmental difficulties and quality of life. The children were interviewed regarding quality of life, and their language was assessed by speech and language pathologists. Test results at 6 years identified three subgroups: children with developmental language disorder (n = 68) or speech sound disorder (n = 6) and children with no current language disorder (n = 11). Results Out of the 68 children with developmental language disorder, 33 (48%) had significant parent-rated problems with language, executive functions 17 (25%), perception 15 (22%) and/or motor skills 15 (22%). Four (67%) of the children with speech sound disorder had significant problems with language. Significant problems were reported with language in five (45%) and with perception in four (36%) children with no current language disorder. The parents reported no impaired quality of life, whereas the children themselves reported impairment mainly with school functioning. Conclusions Overlap between language difficulties and other neurodevelopmental problems was higher in 6-year-olds who had screened positive for developmental language disorder about 3 years earlier, than in the general population. The parent and child reports of quality of life were not consistent.

Due to lack of previous studies, we aimed at evaluating the use of the Five to Fifteen (FTF) questionnaire in adults with neurodevelopmental disorders (NDD) and in controls without NDD. The NDD group consisted of adults with autism spectrum disorder ASD (n = 183) or attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) (n = 174) without intellectual disability, recruited from a tertiary outpatient clinic. A web survey was used to collect data from general population adult control group without NDD (n = 738). The participants were retrospectively rated by their parents regarding childhood symptoms, using five to fifteen-collateral informant questionnaire (FTF-CIQ). Adults with NDD had higher FTF-CIQ domain and subdomain scores than controls, and displayed similar test profiles as children with corresponding diagnosis in previous studies. Based on the FTF-CIQ domain scores, 84.2% of the study participants (93% of the controls; 64% of the adults with NDD) were correctly classified in a logistic regression analysis. Likewise, Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve analysis on FTF-CIQ total sum score indicated that a cut-off value of 20.50 correctly classified 90% of the controls and 67% of the clinical cases, whilst a cut-off value of 30.50 correctly classified 84% of the controls and 77% of the clinical cases. The factor analysis revealed three underlying components: learning difficulties, cognitive and executive functions; social skills and emotional/behavioural symptoms; as well as motor and perceptual skills. Whilst not designed as a diagnostic instrument, the FTF-CIQ may be useful for providing information on childhood symptoms and associated difficulties in individuals assessed for NDD as adults. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s00787-020-01600-w) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Background Parents often recognize problems in their child's development earlier than health professionals do and there is new emphasis on the importance of involving parents in the diagnostic process. In Gothenburg, Sweden, over 100 children were identified as having an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in 2009–11 through a general population language and autism screening of 2.5 year olds at the city's child healthcare centres. Aims To increase understanding of parents’ lived experience of the neuropsychiatric diagnostic process, i.e. the period from the initial screening at age 2.5 years to the 2-year follow-up of the ASD diagnosis. Methods & Procedures A qualitative design, a phenomenological hermeneutic method, was used. Interviews were conducted with parents of 11 children who were diagnosed with ASD 2 years prior. The parents were interviewed about their experiences of the neuropsychiatric diagnostic process, i.e. the time before the screening, the time during the neuropsychiatric multidisciplinary evaluation and the time after diagnosis. The interviews lasted for 45–130 min, and an interview guide with set questions was used. Most of the interviews were conducted at the parents’ homes. Outcomes & Results The essence that emerged from the data was negotiating knowledge, and the three themes capturing the parents’ experiences of going through the process of having their child diagnosed with ASD were seeking knowledge, trusting and challenging experts, and empowered but alone. Conclusions & Implications The parents expected intervention to start directly after diagnosis but felt they had to fight to obtain the resources their child needed. After the process, they described that they felt empowered but still alone, i.e. although they received useful and important information about their child, they were left to manage the situation by themselves. As for clinical implications, the study points to the necessity of developing routines to support the parents during and after the diagnostic process. Recommended measures include developing a checklist outlining relevant contacts and agencies, establishing a coordinator responsible for each child, dividing the summary meeting at the clinic into two parts, making more than one visit to the preschool, and providing a parental training programme.

Ulrika Schachinger-Lorentzon,1 Björn Kadesjö,2 Christopher Gillberg,2 Carmela Miniscalco1,21Department of Pediatric Speech and Language Pathology, Queen Silvia Children’s Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden; 2Gillberg Neuropsychiatry Centre, Institute of Neuroscience and Physiology, University of Gothenburg, SwedenPurpose: To characterize language disorder and developmental profiles in children who screened positive for language delay but negative for autism at 2.5 years of age.Patients and methods: The first 100 children who screened positive for language delay – but negative for autism – in 2016 were assessed in detail by speech language pathologists. Parents completed a newly developed questionnaire covering eight domains – Motor, Executive functions, Perception, Memory, Language, Learning, Social skills and Child’s behaviour – with impairment scored for each domain.Results: ICD-10 language disorder diagnoses were made in 87/100 children (29 girls, 58 boys). Of 52 children with mixed receptive–expressive language disorder, 32% had problems in other developmental areas according to the “global rating” in the impairment questions of the questionnaire. Of the 35 with expressive language disorder, 21% had problems in other areas according to the impairment questions. Thirteen children had isolated language delay with no other diagnoses according to the speech and language pathologists’ assessment; however, 23% of them had problems according to the parental rating on the impairment questions.Conclusion: Most children screening positive for language delay but negative for autism at age 2.5 years were diagnosed with ICD-10 language disorder diagnoses. Parents in about one in four cases reported impairing problems within other developmental areas. Possible explanations for the findings are discussed.Keywords: comorbidity, language disorder, neurodevelopmental, parental questionnaire, preschool children

ADHD is often comorbid with other psychiatric/neurodevelopmental disorders, and is associated with developmental coordination disorder (DCD) in about half of all cases. Therefore, clinicians who are working with patients with ADHD need to be aware of the very strong association with motor impairment and should be able to diagnose motor control problems. There are evidence-based interventions for DCD, which makes it important for clinicians to be able to provide adequate assessment and early diagnosis. Several well-researched screening instruments are available, in particular the test of motor impairment, the movement assessment battery for children, and the screening devices designed by a Swedish group.

Aim: This study identified whether children who had screened positive for either developmental language disorder (DLD) or autism spectrum disorder (ASD) at the age of 2.5 years had neurodevelopmental assessments five years later. Methods: Our study cohort were 288 children born from 1 July 2008 to 20 June 2009 who screened positive for DLD and, or, ASD at 2.5 years. Of these, 237 children were referred to, and assessed, at the Paediatric Speech and Language Pathology clinic (n = 176) or the Child Neuropsychiatry Clinic (n = 61) at the Queen Silvia Children's Hospital, Gothenburg, Sweden. Clinical registers covering all relevant outpatient clinics were reviewed five years later with regard to established diagnoses. Results: When the 237 were followed up five years later, 96 (40%) had established neurodevelopmental disorders or problems, often beyond DLD and ASD. Co‐existing problems were common in this cohort and multidisciplinary assessments were indicated. The other 60% did not appear in subsequent clinic records. It is likely that this 40% was a minimum rate and that more children will be referred for developmental problems later. Conclusion: Five years after they had been screened positive for DLD and, or autism at2.5 years, 40% of our cohort had remaining or other developmental problems.

Objective: We assess the diagnostic accuracy of the QbTest, which measures the cardinal symptoms of ADHD. Method: The study group comprised 182 children (mean age about 10 years), of whom 124 had ADHD and 58 had other clinical diagnosis of which 81% had ASD. Results: Only QbTest parameters for inattention and hyperactivity differentiated between ADHD and other clinical diagnoses at the p ≤ .01 level, not for measures of impulsivity. Sensitivity ranged from 47% to 67% and specificity from 72% to 84%. Positive predictive value ranged from 41% to 86%, and negative predictive value from 43% to 86%. Area under the curve varied from .70 to .80. Conclusion: The ability of the individual QbTest parameters to identify ADHD was moderate. The test’s ability to discriminate between ADHD subtypes was unsatisfactory.

Parents often recognize problems in their child's development earlier than health professionals do and there is new emphasis on the importance of involving parents in the diagnostic process. In Gothenburg, Sweden, over 100 children were identified as having an autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in 2009-11 through a general population language and autism screening of 2.5 year olds at the city's child healthcare centres.To increase understanding of parents' lived experience of the neuropsychiatric diagnostic process, i.e. the period from the initial screening at age 2.5 years to the 2-year follow-up of the ASD diagnosis.A qualitative design, a phenomenological hermeneutic method, was used. Interviews were conducted with parents of 11 children who were diagnosed with ASD 2 years prior. The parents were interviewed about their experiences of the neuropsychiatric diagnostic process, i.e. the time before the screening, the time during the neuropsychiatric multidisciplinary evaluation and the time after diagnosis. The interviews lasted for 45-130 min, and an interview guide with set questions was used. Most of the interviews were conducted at the parents' homes.The essence that emerged from the data was negotiating knowledge, and the three themes capturing the parents' experiences of going through the process of having their child diagnosed with ASD were seeking knowledge, trusting and challenging experts, and empowered but alone.The parents expected intervention to start directly after diagnosis but felt they had to fight to obtain the resources their child needed. After the process, they described that they felt empowered but still alone, i.e. although they received useful and important information about their child, they were left to manage the situation by themselves. As for clinical implications, the study points to the necessity of developing routines to support the parents during and after the diagnostic process. Recommended measures include developing a checklist outlining relevant contacts and agencies, establishing a coordinator responsible for each child, dividing the summary meeting at the clinic into two parts, making more than one visit to the preschool, and providing a parental training programme.