Background This study was designed to extend our understanding of phonology and reading to include suprasegmental awareness using measures of prosodic awareness, which are complex tasks that tap into the rhythmic aspects of phonology. By requiring participants to access, reflect on and manipulate word stress, the prosodic awareness measures used here necessarily impose demands on the executive system. Prosodic awareness was evaluated as a phonological predictor of reading in older readers while controlling for executive functions (EF) in order to ascertain whether observed predictive relationships could be confidently attributed to suprasegmental awareness. Methods 103 adults between 18 and 55 years of age completed tasks on prosodic awareness, EF, vocabulary, nonverbal abilities, naming speed and short‐term memory. Results Independent contributions of prosodic awareness added to models of word reading, whereas EF processes did not uniquely contribute to adult reading outcomes. Conclusions Suprasegmental phonology explains individual differences in word reading among experienced readers. Theoretical implications of findings are discussed. Implications for Practice What is already known about this topic Phonological awareness (PA) becomes less predictive of reading in older readers. PA is typically assessed at the level of the segment (e.g., phonemes, syllables and onset‐rimes), with less focus on suprasegmental processes (e.g., rhythm, stress and intonation). Suprasegmental phonological processing includes measures of prosodic ability (e.g., awareness and manipulation of suprasegmental features of oral language). Studies on prosodic awareness and reading have independent contributions beyond segmental PA in early readers. Less work has been investigated among adult readers. Executive functions (EF) including inhibitory control, working memory, switching and updating and monitoring of goal directed behaviour, predict overall academic achievement. Limited studies have controlled for EF demands in phonological tasks. What this paper adds Tasks of prosodic awareness necessarily impose demands on the executive system when manipulating components of oral language. After controlling for EF and controls, prosodic awareness explained individual differences in adult word reading. Tasks of suprasegmental phonological processes explain the association between phonology and reading in older and more experienced readers. Researchers who explore phonology and reading development should begin to include tasks of prosodic awareness to examine the dual role of segmental and suprasegmental PA as it is implicated across development. Implications for theory, policy or practice Theoretical models of phonology and reading can be extended to include suprasegmental processes. For educational practitioners involved in reading assessment of older readers, tasks of prosodic awareness are a more age‐appropriate measure of phonology. Tasks of phonology and reading with increasing complexity impose greater demands on the executive system....

No abstract

Multilingual children represent a rapidly growing population of students in U.S. schools. However, identification of language and learning disabilities for students from different linguistic backgrounds is complex, leading to frequent misidentification of multilingual learners for special education. This article provides guidance on how special education teachers, speech-language pathologists, and other practitioners (e.g., school psychologists) can utilize each other’s expertise to accurately assess language and literacy skills of multilingual learners. Five key lessons learned from research on identification of language disorders are presented, along with discussion of why these are important when screening multilingual children for learning disabilities in reading. Specifically, there is a focus on considering children’s language background, regardless of English learner status, the importance of language ability for reading achievement, common pitfalls in using standardized assessments with multilingual learners, and linguistically sensitive assessment and scoring practices to be used with multilingual students.

No abstract

Purpose: To examine the relationship between parent concerns about children’s oral language, reading, and related skills and their children’s performance on standardized assessments of language and reading, with a particular focus on whether those relationships differed between children recruited for in-school versus remote participation. Methods: This study used data from a larger, longitudinal project focused on children with and without developmental language disorder (DLD) and/or dyslexia. The “in-school” sample (n = 133) completed assessments in-person before the COVID-19 school closures, and the “remote” sample (n = 84) recruited via advertisements completed all assessments online. Parents completed a checklist of concerns regarding language and literacy development, attention and executive functions. All children completed norm-referenced assessments of language and reading.Results: The two recruitment strategies yielded samples that differed in racial diversity (higher in the in-school sample), caregiver education levels and financial resources (higher in the remote sample), and word reading test scores (higher in the remote sample). Parents in both samples reported higher levels of concerns about literacy skills than oral language skills, and the correlation between parent concerns about literacy and children’s word reading test scores was stronger than the correlation between parent concerns about oral language and children’s language test scores. We did not find higher level of concerns or a higher correlation between concerns and reading and language performance in the remote sample than the in-school sample.Conclusions: Researchers should be aware of the impact of different recruitment strategies on sample attainment. Referral models that rely on parent and teacher concerns about oral language to prompt a language evaluation may contribute to low rates of identification of children who meet criteria for DLD. Future research can consider parent concerns about literacy, attention, and executive functions as indicators of a need for language evaluation, especially considering the high comorbidity between language and other developmental disorders.

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationship between parent concerns about children's oral language, reading, and related skills and their children's performance on standardized assessments of language and reading, with a particular focus on whether those relationships differed between children recruited for in-school versus online participation. Method: This study used data from a larger, longitudinal project focused on children with and without developmental language disorder (DLD) and/or dyslexia. The “in-school” sample ( n = 133) completed assessments in-person before school closures, and the “online” sample ( n = 84) recruited via advertisements completed assessments online. Parents completed a checklist of concerns. All children completed norm-referenced assessments of language and reading. Results: The two recruitment strategies yielded samples that differed in racial diversity (higher in the in-school sample), caregiver education levels (higher in the online sample), and word reading test scores (higher in the online sample). Parents in both samples reported higher levels of concerns about literacy skills than oral language skills, and the correlation between parent concerns about literacy and children's word reading test scores was stronger than the correlation between parent concerns about oral language and children's language test scores. Conclusions: Researchers and clinicians should be aware of how recruitment strategies and assessment modalities (e.g., in-person vs. tele-assessment) may impact participation in studies and clinical service. A reliance on parent concerns about oral language to prompt a language evaluation may contribute to low rates of identification of children who meet criteria for DLD. Future research can consider parent concerns about literacy, attention, and executive functions as indicators of a need for language evaluation, especially considering the high comorbidity between language and other developmental disorders.

No abstract

No abstract