Search

Although the accurate diagnosis and effective instruction for reading disorders through multi-tiered systems of support is one of the most foundational components of school psychology training and practice, there are significant opportunities for innovation, renewed excitement, and social justice. In this article, we identify reading assessments, interventions, and systems-level policies shown to be effective through rigorous, empirical research. These effective practices are not well known by school psychologists or commonly implemented in schools. We propose four areas to better align school psychology training and practice with the most cutting-edge reading research to improve student outcomes in the future: (a) building knowledge of reading development, (b) increasing the commitment to school-based careers, (c) implementing more instructionally-useful reading screening and special education assessment practices (including using the hybrid model of identification), and (d) promoting evidence-based reading instruction and intervention. Throughout each of these four areas, we highlight the need for multi-disciplinary collaboration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Understanding the experiences of families of children with developmental language disorder (DLD) during COVID-19 educational disruptions is essential for designing responsive supports during pandemic recovery efforts and beyond. This qualitative study describes the experiences of families of first-and second-grade children with DLD during the pandemic as compared to the experiences of families of typically developing (TD) peers. Method: A conventional content analysis approach was used to analyze caregivers' written responses to open-ended questions regarding their perceptions of COVID-19 educational disruptions. Responses were analyzed separately by group: caregivers of children with DLD (n = 23) and caregivers of TD children (n = 22). Results: Four categories of caregiver responses were generated for each group: impacts on children, remote learning challenges, impacts on caregivers, and protective factors. For both groups, concerns about the child's well-being and literacy learning were most prevalent and prevailed over concerns about oral language. Most caregivers in each group described negative impacts of educational disruptions on their cdhildren. As compared to caregivers of TD children, caregivers of children with DLD reported higher rates of remote learning challenges and more negative impacts on literacy learning, speech and/or language, and education in general. DLD caregivers also shared fewer positive comments and remarks related to protective factors. Conclusions: Results indicate that families of children with DLD may have experienced more challenges during COVID-19 educational disruptions as compared to families of TD peers. Thus, responsive research and supports for these families is essential. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: This review aims to comprehensively summarize, compare, and evaluate screeners used to identify risk for developmental language disorder (DLD), a common learning disability that is underidentified. Screening for DLD is a cost-effective way to identify children in need of further assessment and, in turn, provides much needed supports. Method: We identified 15 commercially available English language DLD screeners in North America. We then characterized each screener on 27 aspects in three domains, including (a) accessibility information (acronym, subtest, website, cost, materials included, publish year, examiner qualification, age range, administration time, and administration format), (b) usability features (dialect compatibility, progress monitoring function, actionable follow-up instruction, group assessment capability, and online administration availability), and (c) technical standards (the availability of a technical manual, conceptual definition, the sample size used in classification accuracy calculation, sample distribution, year of sample collection, outcome measure, sample base rate, cutoff score, sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and negative predictive value). Results: We obtained sufficient accessibility information from 14 out of 15 (93%) screeners. In contrast, none of the screeners (0%) included comprehensive usability features. Ten screeners (67%) included a range of classification accuracy (70%–100% sensitivity and 68%–90% specificity). We provided areas of strength and weakness for each screener as a quick reference for users and generated screener recommendations for five practical scenarios. Conclusions: Our findings presented some DLD screeners that meet most standards and highlight numerous areas for improvement, including improving classification accuracy and clarifying follow-up instructions for children who are identified with DLD risk. Screening for DLD is critical to provide timely early identification, intervention, and classroom support, which in turn facilitates student outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Little is known about the relationship between sentence production and phonological working memory in school-age children. To fill this gap, we examined how strongly these constructs correlate. We also compared diagnostic groups' working memory abilities to see if differences co-occurred with qualitative differences in their sentences. Method: We conducted Bayesian analyses on data from seven- to nine-year-old children (n = 165 typical language, n = 81 dyslexia-only, n = 43 comorbid dyslexia and developmental language disorder). We correlated sentence production and working memory scores and conducted t tests between groups' working memory scores and sentence length, lexical diversity, and complexity. Results: Correlations were positive but weak. The dyslexic and typical groups had dissimilar working memory and comparable sentence quality. The dyslexic and comorbid groups had comparable working memory but dissimilar sentence quality. Conclusion: Contrary to literature-based predictions, phonological working memory and sentence production are weakly related in school-age children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractPurposeMethodResultConclusionChildren with developmental language disorder (DLD) are at heightened risk for reading difficulty. We investigated the home literacy environments of kindergarten children with DLD and typically developing (TD) peers during the COVID-19 pandemic.We analysed scores from standardised assessments of oral language, nonverbal intelligence, and word reading in conjunction with home literacy questionnaire data at three time points.Frequency of engagement in home literacy activities did not differ by group during school closures or when schools reopened. Caregivers from both groups reported increased home literacy engagement during closures. Engagement returned to pre-pandemic levels when schools reopened. For the DLD group, the child’s word reading ability and interest in literacy were positively associated with the home literacy environment. Family history of language and/or literacy difficulty was negatively associated with the home literacy environment. For the TD group, only the child’s interest in literacy was positively associated with the home literacy environment.These findings elucidate the need for further research related to home literacy and families of children with DLD, with a focus on identifying potential strengths and vulnerabilities related to child and caregiver factors. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]