This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. sample of children aged 2;6-4;0 (n=168), together with language assessments. Permanent repository linkResults: Performance in the typical sample was independent of gender and SES, but was affected by age, item length, and prosodic structure, and was moderately correlated with receptive vocabulary. Performance in the clinic sample was significantly poorer, but revealed similar effects of length and prosody, and similar relations to language measures overall, with some notable exceptions. Test-retest and interrater reliability were high. Conclusions: The PSRep Test is a viable and informative test. It differentiates withinand between 'typical' and 'clinic' samples of children, and reveals some unusual profiles within the clinic sample. These findings lay the foundations for a follow-up study of the clinic sample to investigate the predictive value of the test.

The Communicative Development Inventories (CDIs) are parent report measures of vocabulary and other aspects of language development in very young children. They have evolved over the past 20 years to be one of the most well recognised assessments of infant language. Of particular significance is the fact that the CDIs are the first measures of their kind to be widely translated and adapted for use in many different languages. The inventories have served a variety of functions including measuring early language acquisition, deriving normative data on language acquisition, and both identifying and describing children whose early language is significantly delayed. This review describes the development of the CDIs, summarises the volume of research that has been generated in a range of applications of the measures, and evaluates their current standing both as a research tool and as a clinical measure. Issues around the sensitivity and predictive value of the CDIs are also considered.

This is the unspecified version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link:

Citation: Roy, P. & Chiat, S. (2004). A prosodically controlled word and nonword repetition task for 2-to 4-year-olds: Evidence from typically developing children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(1), pp. 223-234. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2004 This is the accepted version of the paper.This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. An association has been found between nonword repetition and language skills in school-aged children with both typical and atypical language development (Dollaghan & Campbell, 1998; Ellis Weismer et al., 2000;Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990;Montgomery, 2002). This raises the possibility that younger children's repetition performance may be predictive of later language deficits. In order to investigate this possibility, it is important to establish that elicited repetition with very young children is both feasible and informative. PermanentTo this end, a repetition task was designed and carried out with 66 children aged 2-4. The task consisted of 18 words and 18 matched nonwords that were systematically manipulated for length and prosodic structure. In addition, an assessment of receptive vocabulary was administered.The repetition task elicited high levels of response. Total scores as well as word and nonword scores were sensitive to age. Lexical status and item length affected performance regardless of age: words were repeated more accurately than nonwords, and one-syllable items were repeated more accurately than two-syllable items, which were in turn repeated more accurately than three-syllable items. The effect of prosodic structure was also significant. Whole syllable errors were almost exclusive to unstressed syllables, with those preceding stress being most vulnerable. Performance on the repetition task was significantly correlated with performance on the receptive vocabulary test. Since this repetition task was effective in eliciting responses from most of the 2 to 4-year-old participants, tapped developmental change in their repetition skills, and revealed patterns in their performance, it has the potential to identify deficits in very early repetition skills that may be indicative of wider language difficulties. Word and nonword repetition 3A prosodically-controlled word and nonword repetition task for 2-4 year olds: Evidence from typically developing children However, the current high profile of nonword repetition testing is due more to the relationships that have been found between nonword repetition and a range of other language abilities and disabilities. Nonword Repetition and Language Measures

Previous research has shown that children receiving substitute parental care tend to have high rates of emotional/behavioural disturbance, but uncertainty remains on the extent to which this derives from genetic risk, adverse experiences before receiving substitute care, or from risks associated with substitute care experiences. In order to examine the effects of institutional rearing (as a specific form of substitute care), two groups of primary school children reared in substitute care from before the age of 12 months were compared: 19 children in residential group (institutional) care and 19 in continuous stable foster family care (matched for age and gender). The two groups were similar in coming from biological families with high rates of psychopathology and social malfunctioning, but differed with respect to pattern of rearing. Both groups were compared with classroom controls, using teacher questionnaires, systematic classroom observations, and standardised cognitive testing. Parental questionnaires were also obtained for the two substitute care groups. As found previously, the combined substitute care groups differed from controls in showing a high level of hyperactivity/inattention. The observational measures showed a similar effect, indicating that the elevated rate was not attributable to rater bias. The teacher questionnaire and observational measures showed, however, that the increased level of hyperactivity/ inattention was substantially higher in the institutional group than the foster family group. Parental questionnaire ratings showed the same contrast between the groups, except that the main difference was on unsociability and emotional disturbance rather than hyperactivity/ inattention. It is concluded that, against a background of genetic and early environmental risk, institutional rearing predisposes to a pattern of hyperactivity/inattention.