Differentiating dialect from disorder: a comparison of two processing tasks and a standardized language test

Rodekohr, Rachel K; Haynes, William O.

doi:10.1016/s0021-9924(01)00050-8

Cited by 64 publications

(65 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The difference between these two groups (SLI/TLD) was greater in longer non-words, beginning with the three-syllable length. Our results are similar to findings for children speaking English (Dollaghan & Campbell, 1998;Ellis Weismer et al, 2000;Montgomery, 2004;Rodekohr & Haynes, 2001) and findings from other languages (e.g., Le Foll et al, 1995), including Spanish (Girbau & Schwartz, 2007).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

“…Children with SLI and children with TLD have particular difficulties repeating non-words of three or more syllables (e.g., Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990;Gathercole & Baddeley, 1996;Rodekohr & Haynes, 2001). The phonotactic probabilities of target syllables also affect performance in children from 3 to 6 years of age with and without phonological disorders (Munson, Edwards, & Beckman, 2005).…”

Section: Non-word Repetition Tasks With English Phonotactic Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Phonological working memory in Spanish–English bilingual children with and without specific language impairment

Girbau

Schwartz

2008

Journal of Communication Disorders

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 92%

Section: Non-word Repetition Tasks With English Phonotactic Patternsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Phonological working memory in Spanish–English bilingual children with and without specific language impairment

Girbau

Schwartz

2008

Journal of Communication Disorders

113

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Traditionally, speech-language pathologists diagnose children with language impairments (LI) by comparing their performance on standardized tests with the performance of their same-age peers (Tomblin, Records, & Zhang, 1996). There is growing dissatisfaction with single-time assessment because of the potential for measurement error (Bracken, 1988;McCauley & Swisher, 1984a, 1984bPlante & Vance, 1994) as well as the interfering effects of potential cultural bias (Demsky, Mittenberg, Quintar, Katell, & Golden, 1998;Rodekohr & Haynes, 2001;Scheffner-Hammer, Pennock-Roman, Rzasa, & Tomblin, 2002;Valencia & Rankin, 1985;Valencia & Suzuki, 2001). Recently, Spaulding, Plante, and Farinella (2006) reviewed 43 commercially available tests of language that are currently in use.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Assessment of School-Age Children’s Narrative Ability: An Experimental Investigation of Classification Accuracy

Peña

Gillam

Malek

et al. 2006

J Speech Lang Hear Res

141

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examined reliability and classification accuracy of a narration-based dynamic assessment task.Purpose-The first experiment evaluated whether parallel results were obtained from stories created in response to 2 different wordless picture books. If so, the tasks and measures would be appropriate for assessing pretest and posttest change within a dynamic assessment format. The second experiment evaluated the extent to which children with language impairments performed differently than typically developing controls on dynamic assessment of narrative language.Method-In the first experiment, 58 1st-and 2nd-grade children told 2 stories about wordless picture books. Stories were rated on macrostructural and microstructural aspects of language form and content, and the ratings were subjected to reliability analyses. In the second experiment, 71 children participated in dynamic assessment. There were 3 phases: a pretest phase, in which children created a story that corresponded to 1 of the wordless picture books from Experiment 1; a teaching phase, in which children attended 2 short mediation sessions that focused on storytelling ability; and a posttest phase, in which children created a story that corresponded to a second wordless picture book from Experiment 1. Analyses compared the pretest and posttest stories that were told by 2 groups of children who received mediated learning (typical and language impaired groups) and a no-treatment control group of typically developing children from Experiment 1.Results-The results of the first experiment indicated that the narrative measures applied to stories about 2 different wordless picture books had good internal consistency. In Experiment 2, typically developing children who received mediated learning demonstrated a greater amount of pretest to posttest change than children in the language impaired and control groups. Classification analysis indicated better specificity and sensitivity values for measures of response to intervention (modifiability) and posttest storytelling than for measures of pretest storytelling. Observation of modifiability was the single best indicator of language impairment. Posttest measures and modifiability together yielded no misclassifications. Conclusion-The first experiment supported the use of 2 wordless picture books as stimulus materials for collecting narratives before and after mediation within a dynamic assessment paradigm. The second experiment supported the use of dynamic assessment for accurately identifying language impairments in school-age children. Traditionally, speech-language pathologists diagnose children with language impairments (LI) by comparing their performance on standardized tests with the performance of their same-age peers (Tomblin, Records, & Zhang, 1996). There is growing dissatisfaction with single-time assessment because of the potential for measurement error (Bracken, 1988;McCauley & Swisher, 1984a, 1984bPlante & Vance, 1994) as well as the interfering effects of potential cultural bias (De...

show abstract

“…Specifically, we are manipulating stimulus characteristics of items in a complex working memory task (Hoover & Storkel, 2005). The use of working memory measures has been found to be beneficial over standardized vocabulary tests, given their ability to detect differences in the process of word learning (Dollaghan & Campbell, 1998) and to reduce cultural bias (Rodekohr & Haynes, 2001). Clinicians may need to consider supplementing standard diagnostic practices with some of these newer techniques.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Clinical Issues: Understanding Word Learning by Preschool Children: Insights From Multiple Tasks, Stimulus Characteristics, and Error Analysis

Hoover

Storkel

2005

Perspect Lang Learn Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

KS 66045-7555, hstorkel@ku.edu, www.ku.edu/~wrdlrng. Preschool Word Learning 2Understanding Word Learning by Preschool Children: Insights from Multiple Tasks, Stimulus Characteristics, and Error Analysis Lexical acquisition occurs rapidly and with relative ease in typically developing children.Children can form an initial representation of a novel word following only a single exposure (e.g., Dollaghan, 1985). The number of root words known increases from approximately 3,500 at the beginning of kindergarten to about 6,000 at the end of second grade (Biemiller, 2001;Biemiller & Slonin, 2001). While there is clear evidence that children learn words rapidly, what remains to be discovered is how children are able to accomplish this complex task so effortlessly. To learn a word, a child must store in memory two types of representations, semantic and word form, as well as the links between them (see Gupta this issue). The semantic representation refers to the meaningful information regarding a referent (e.g., "a toothed strip of rigid material for arranging the hair" for "comb"). A word form representation refers to the combination of sounds as a whole sequence and constitutes the word form (e.g., /koUm/ for "comb;" Vitevitch & Luce, 1999). Moreover, children may capitalize on known phonological representations to support word learning. A phonological representation refers to the individual sounds of the language (e.g., /k/ /oU/ /m/ in "comb"). Gupta (this issue) formalizes these levels of word learning in his functional framework. Here we extend the framework to children, examining groups of typical learners and learners with phonological delays. In addition, we illustrate how using multiple tasks, manipulating the stimulus characteristics of the words to be learned, and analyzing errors can provide a window into the formation of each type of representation. Multiple TasksA series of tasks can be used to examine the formation of phonological, word form, and semantic representations during word learning by preschool children (

show abstract

Differentiating dialect from disorder: a comparison of two processing tasks and a standardized language test

Cited by 64 publications

References 13 publications

Phonological working memory in Spanish–English bilingual children with and without specific language impairment

Phonological working memory in Spanish–English bilingual children with and without specific language impairment

Dynamic Assessment of School-Age Children’s Narrative Ability: An Experimental Investigation of Classification Accuracy

Clinical Issues: Understanding Word Learning by Preschool Children: Insights From Multiple Tasks, Stimulus Characteristics, and Error Analysis

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About