Effects of Sampling Context on Spontaneous Expressive Language in Males With Fragile X Syndrome or Down Syndrome

Abstract

Purpose This study examined the impact of sampling context on multiple aspects of expressive language in males with fragile X syndrome in comparison to males with Down syndrome or typical development. Method Participants with fragile X syndrome (n = 27), ages 10 to 17 years, were matched groupwise on nonverbal mental age to adolescents with Down syndrome (n = 15) and typically developing 3- to 6-year-olds (n = 15). Language sampling contexts were an interview-style conversation and narration of a wordless book, with scripted examiner behavior. Language was assessed in terms of amount of talk, MLU of communication unit (MLCU), lexical diversity, fluency, and intelligibility. Results Participants with fragile X syndrome had lower MLCU and lexical diversity than participants with typical development. Participants with Down syndrome produced yet lower MLCU. A differential effect of context among those with fragile X syndrome, Down syndrome, and typical development emerged for the number of attempts per minute, MLCU, and fluency. For participants with fragile X syndrome, autism symptom severity related to the number of utterances produced in conversation. Aspects of examiner behavior related to participant performance. Conclusions Sampling context characteristics should be considered when assessing expressive language in individuals with neurodevelopmental disabilities.

Growth of Expressive Syntax in Children With Fragile X Syndrome

“…Kover, McDuffie, Abbeduto, & Brown, 2012). Variability due to C-units versus total utterances did not appear to be an issue, because children seldom used simple compound sentences that could inflate MLU (Abbeduto, Benson, Short, & Dolish, 1995).…”

“…Moreover, the contexts used for language sampling may have limited the opportunities for children with FXS to produce advanced syntactic structures. It has been suggested that "sampling contexts vary in the extent to which they elicit the upper bound of an individual's linguistic ability" (Kover et al, 2012(Kover et al, , p. 1023. The contexts we sampled (e.g., conversation, free play) between the child and an adult might not support the production of complex syntactic structures.…”

O uso da comunicação suplementar e/ou alternativa no trabalho com a morfossintaxe em adolescentes com Síndrome de Down

“…With the aim to verify the linguistic development, especially the morphosyntactic, we chose to compare the subjects' initial and final performances by assessing samples of natural spontaneous speech in an interaction situation of symbolic play, as indicated in literature 12,28,30 . To assure such performance, the adolescents were assessed in dyads with their respective caregivers.…”

“…Not all of these studies are conducted with a numerous or homogeneous population, when considering the chronological age; moreover, the therapeutic procedures used in morphosyntax intervention are frequently not informed 3,9,12,14,28 .…”

Language Sample Length Effects on Various Lexical Diversity Measures: An Analysis of Spanish Language Samples from Children

“…The goal has been to identify a measure of lexical diversity that is effective, yet minutely affected by language sample length. Studies have been conducted in various languages including English (Owen & Leonard, 2002;Heilmann, Nockerts & Miller, 2010;McCarthy & Jarvis, 2010;Kover et al, 2012;Fergadiotis, Wright & Green, 2015), Cantonese (Klee et al, 2004;Wong et al, 2010), Chinese-English bilinguals (Ooi & Wong, 2012) and Spanish-English bilinguals (Simon-Cereijido & Gutierrez-Clellen, 2009;Bedore et al, 2010). Unfortunately, not all of these studies used the same measure of lexical diversity indices or sample demographic.…”