Purpose The aim of this study was to determine whether the word-learning challenges associated with developmental language disorder (DLD) result from encoding or retention deficits. Method In Study 1, 59 postsecondary students with DLD and 60 with normal development (ND) took the California Verbal Learning Test–Second Edition, Adult Version (Delis, Kramer, Kaplan, & Ober, 2000). In Study 2, 23 postsecondary students with DLD and 24 with ND attempted to learn 9 novel words in each of 3 training conditions: uncued test, cued test, and no test (passive study). Retention was measured 1 day and 1 week later. Results By the end of training, students with DLD had encoded fewer familiar words (Study 1) and fewer novel words (Study 2) than their ND peers as evinced by word recall. They also demonstrated poorer encoding as evinced by slower growth in recall from Trials 1 to 2 (Studies 1 and 2), less semantic clustering of recalled words, and poorer recognition (Study 1). The DLD and ND groups were similar in the relative amount of information they could recall after retention periods of 5 and 20 min (Study 1). After a 1-day retention period, the DLD group recalled less information that had been encoded via passive study, but they performed as well as their ND peers when recalling information that had been encoded via tests (Study 2). Compared to passive study, encoding via tests also resulted in more robust lexical engagement after a 1-week retention for DLD and ND groups. Conclusions Encoding, not retention, is the problematic stage of word learning for adults with DLD. Self-testing with feedback lessens the deficit. Supplemental Materials https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.5435200

Purpose To describe the word-learning problems characteristic of developmental language impairment (LI). Method College students with LI (n = 39) or normal language development (ND, n = 40) attempted to learn novel word forms. Training for half of the words was meaning-focused; training for the other half was form-focused. Form recognition and stem completion tasks administered immediately after training tapped encoding of the lexical configuration, and a repetition of the stem completion task one week later tapped consolidation. A visual world paradigm tapped lexical engagement. Result At the immediate posttest, the LI group was poorer at recognition and completion of word forms than their ND peers, suggesting a deficit in encoding the lexical configuration. However, the gap between the LI and ND groups in stem completion did not grow over the week, suggesting intact consolidation. Form-focused training yielded better performance than meaning-focused training at immediate- and one-week tests. For both groups, newly trained words slowed the recognition of familiar English words, revealing lexical engagement. Conclusion The encoding of word-form configurations is challenging for some, but not all, college students with LI. Training that encourages a focus on the form may be a useful part of vocabulary intervention for those affected.

Purpose Based on evidence of deficits in domain-general cognitive abilities associated with developmental language disorder (DLD), the current study examined sustained attention performance in children with DLD compared to children with typical language development (TLD) and the interrelations between visual–spatial sustained attention, visual–spatial working memory, and language abilities across groups. Method Participants included 67 children at 7 years of age: 25 children with DLD (13 girls and 12 boys) and 42 children with TLD (23 girls and 19 boys). We assessed children's visual–spatial sustained attention, visual–spatial working memory, and language ability on a test of narrative language. Result Children with DLD scored significantly below their peers on a measure of visual–spatial sustained attention. Significant intercorrelations were observed between sustained attention, working memory, and language ability within the DLD group, but no correlations were observed between these measures in the TLD group. Conclusion Children with DLD have domain-general deficits in sustained attention, and correlational results have implications for whether and how language abilities are supported by domain-general cognition in both typical and disordered development.

Purpose: The aim of this study was to situate developmental language disorder (DLD) within the impairment and disability framework of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability, and Health (ICF); describe the functional strengths and weaknesses of a cohort of first-grade children with DLD and their peers; and explore the ways that language-related disabilities relate to language impairment, developmental risk, and receipt of language services. Method: We queried the caregivers of 35 children with DLD and 44 peers with typical language development about their children's language-related functions, developmental risks, and language services using mixed quantitative and qualitative methods. Results: The children with DLD presented with weaknesses in domains that are highly dependent upon language skill, including communication, community function, interpersonal relationships, and academics. They presented with strengths in domestic and personal aspects of daily living, play and coping aspects of socialization, and gross motor function. Caregivers of children with DLD expressed pride in their children's agentive and prosocial qualities. Consistent with the ICF, what distinguished children with DLD who had functional weaknesses and disabilities from those who had healthy function was not the severity of language impairment as measured by decontextualized tests of language skill, but the presence of cumulative developmental risks. Compared to those with healthy function, a larger portion of children with weaknesses and disabilities were receiving language services; however, two girls who had disabilities despite mild levels of impairment were without services. Conclusions: Children with DLD present with predictable strengths and weaknesses in everyday language-related functioning. For some children, the weaknesses are mild, but for others, they limit function to a greater extent and should be considered disabilities. The severity of language impairment is not a strong indicator of language-related function and, therefore, is not a good metric for determining service qualification.