2011
DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.03.010
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Assessment of second language proficiency in bilingual children with specific language impairment: A clinical perspective

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
35
1
2

Year Published

2014
2014
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
7
1
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 39 publications
(40 citation statements)
references
References 13 publications
1
35
1
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Notes on methodology: All studies reported matching groups on at least chronological age (CA). Most provided information on how bilingualism was assessed (apart from Westman et al., ) and defined the type of bilingualism in their sample (apart from Verhoeven, Steenge, van Weerdenburg, et al., ; Verhoeven, Steenge, & van Balkom, ). Although not reported for all studies, effect sizes for all comparisons were medium to large.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Notes on methodology: All studies reported matching groups on at least chronological age (CA). Most provided information on how bilingualism was assessed (apart from Westman et al., ) and defined the type of bilingualism in their sample (apart from Verhoeven, Steenge, van Weerdenburg, et al., ; Verhoeven, Steenge, & van Balkom, ). Although not reported for all studies, effect sizes for all comparisons were medium to large.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Most studies found that multiSLI groups, when compared to monoTD groups, performed worse on measures of linguistic features (Crutchley et al., ; Engel de Abreu et al., ; Spoelman & Bol, ; Verhoeven, Steenge, van Weerdenburg, et al., ; Verhoeven, Steenge, & van Balkom, ). However, findings were mixed when they were compared to multiTD groups, with an equal number of studies reporting poorer performance on measures of linguistic features including use of correct verb forms or endings according to tense and number, and persistence of immature grammatical forms, and number of grammatical errors produced (Blom & Paradis, ; Rothweiler, Chilla, & Babur, ; Sanz‐Torrent, ) and conversely, no differences on these types of measures (Clahsen et al., ; Gutierrez‐Clellen, Simon‐Cereijido, & Erickson Leone, ; Verhoeven, Steenge, van Weerdenburg, et al., ; Verhoeven, Steenge, & van Balkom, ).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Research conducted in the Netherlands showed that bilingual children with LI performed weaker on Dutch vocabulary and morphology tasks relative to both bilingual TD children and monolingual children with LI, indicating double delays (Verhoeven et al, 2011; Blom and Boerma, 2017). While the effect of LI on vocabulary scores was even larger in a bilingual than in a monolingual group of children, difficulty with morphology was not aggravated by the presence of LI in combination with bilingualism (Blom and Boerma, 2017; see also, Paradis, 2010b).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…59,60 A more specific question was whether bilingual children with SLI exhibit more severe forms of language impairment than their monolingual peers. 61,62 There was no evidence for a negative effect of bilingualism on language performance in children with SLI compared with their monolingual peers with SLI. For example, English-French speaking bilingual children with SLI showed comparable performance to monolingual children with SLI in several morphological tasks.…”
Section: Bilingualism and Language Impairment: Their Effects On Cognimentioning
confidence: 93%