Language Development in Infants and Toddlers With Fragile X Syndrome: Change Over Time and the Role of Attention

Abstract

Fragile X syndrome (FXS) is associated with significant language and communication delays, as well as problems with attention. This study investigated early language abilities in infants and toddlers with FXS (n = 13) and considered visual attention as a predictor of those skills. We found that language abilities increased over the study period of 9 to 24 months with moderate correlations among language assessments. In comparison to typically developing infants (n = 11), language skills were delayed beyond chronological age- and developmental level-expectations. Aspects of early visual attention predicted later language ability. Atypical visual attention is an important aspect of the FXS phenotype with implications for early language development, particularly in the domain of vocabulary.

Early Intervention for Children with Intellectual Disabilities: An Update

“…; Hagerman ; Kover et al . ). Many of these difficulties are reflected in the developmental course of many aspects of children's adaptive behaviour (Klaiman et al .…”

Initiating joint attention use in infants at high‐risk for autism spectrum disorder

“…However, the sample size is comparatively robust in relation to existing studies of infants with FXS (Kover et al . ; Mirrett et al . ).…”

“…Prior research on social communication in children with FXS has focused on language outcomes using visual attention (Kover et al . ), preschool‐aged children and adolescents rather than infants with FXS (Rogers et al . ; Flenthrope and Brady ), other forms of JA (Marschik et al .…”

“Didn’t I just say that?” Comparing parent report and spontaneous speech as indicators of grammatical development

“…Furthermore, with children with developmental disorders such as Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) and Fragile X Syndrome (FXS), parental assessments of language and reading using the Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales (Sparrow, Cicchetti & Balla, 2005) have been found to yield high levels of agreement with experimenter administered tests such as the Mullen Scales of Early Learning (Mullen, 1995, Mullen Receptive: r = 0.53, Mullen Expressive: r = 0.85), the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (NARA; Neale, 2007, Passage-level accuracy: r = 0.81, Passage-level comprehension: r = 0.88), the Early Language Milestones Scales (Coplan, 1993, r s = 0.24 – 0.50), the Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language Scale (Bzoch & League, 1991, r s = 0.47 – 0.67), and the Wide Range Achievement Test (WRAT; Wilkinson & Roberton, 2006, r = 0.70) (Luyster et al, 2008; Arciuli, Stevens, Trembath, & Simpson, 2013; Kover, McCary, Ingram, Hatton, & Roberts, 2015). Additionally, researchers have demonstrated that parent reports can yield similar categorizations of developmental delay.…”

“…That is, parent report measures yield scores calculated across items, and experimenter-administered measures yield scores calculated across items, and the consistency or reliability of the two types of measures has always been calculated based on these overall scores, rather than based on the reliability or agreement of specific items. For example, vocabulary assessments are usually judged for reliability based on overall words produced or understood on vocabulary checklists, on experimenter assessments, and in children’s speech (Fenson et al, 1993; Kover et al, 2015; Libertus, Odic, Feigenson, & Halberda, 2015; Dale, 1991). Grammatical assessments are usually judged for reliability based on total number of grammatical forms that parents endorse, total scores on experimenter assessments, and MLU in children’s speech (Fenson et al, 1993; Feldman et al, 2005; Dale, 1991).…”