Search

3 years of age is challenging. Among early risk factors, research has focused on having a positive familial history (FH+) for language or literacy problems and on late language emergence, that is, late-talker (LT) status. The interaction between these two risk factors and their cumulative effect is still debated. Here, we (a) investigate the effect of FH+ on 24-month language development, (b) test for cumulative effects of FH+ status and early language delay on 36-month language outcomes, and (c) disentangle the direct and indirect effects of familial history (FH) on the language outcome. Method: One hundred eighty-five Italian children were followed up longitudinally between 24 and 36 months of age (64 FH+ and 121 FH-) through parental questionnaires and direct child assessment. Results: At the age of 24 months, the FH+ group showed worse expressive vocabulary and higher prevalence of LT. At the age of 36 months, main effects of LT and FH were identified on lexical and phonological performances, respectively. Interestingly, significant interaction effects were identified on expressive vocabulary and phonological processing. Path analysis highlights that FH had a direct effect on later measures of phonology, whereas its effect on 36-month lexical abilities was indirect, via measures of expressive vocabulary at 24 months. Conclusions: The study suggests specific predictive roles of FH and LT status on language development. Interestingly, FH+ seems to represent an additive risk for LT children. The use of cumulative risk measures is confirmed as a powerful approach to identify those children with the highest probability of developing persistent language difficulties. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of new technologies for intervention in developmental dyslexia is steadily growing. In order to better understand the needs, the expectations, and the attitudes of Italian expert health professionals concerning such technologies, a national survey was conducted applying the Delphi methodology. Ad-hoc questionnaires were sent out to a group of eighteen experts over three successive rounds, and anonymously collected responses were aggregated and shared with the group after each round, aiming to reach a consensus on the proposed response. The goal was to define a series of statements that could form the basis for international “good practices” in the use of technologies for intervention to support dyslexia in children and adolescents. In the first round, the experts’ general opinions were collected with both multiple choice and open questions, and in the second round consensus was assessed on a series of statements based on the first replies. The cut-off of 75% consensus on each statement was reached after three rounds. Fifteen experts completed all the rounds of the process, and a final version of the statements regarding good practice in the use of technologies for dyslexia could be defined. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]