Matching variables for research involving youth with Down syndrome: Leiter-R versus PPVT-4

Abstract

Much of what is known about the cognitive profile of Down syndrome (DS) is based on using either receptive vocabulary (e.g., PPTV-4) or nonverbal ability (e.g., Leiter-R) as a baseline to represent cognitive developmental level. In the present study, we examined the relation between these two measures in youth with DS, with non-DS intellectual disability (ID) and with typical development (TD). We also examined the degree to which these two measures produce similar results when used as a group matching variable. In a cross-sectional developmental trajectory analysis, we found that the relation between PPVT-4 and Leiter-R was largely similar across groups. However, when contrasting PPVT-4 and Leiter-R as alternate matching variables, the pattern of results was not always the same. When matched on Leiter-R or PPVT-4, the group with DS performed below that of the groups with ID and TD on receptive grammar and below the group with TD on category learning. When matched on the PPVT-4, the group with ID performed below that of the group with TD on receptive grammar and category learning, but these differences between the groups with ID and TD were not found when matched on the Leiter-R. The results of the study suggest that the PPVT-4 and Leiter-R are interchangeable at least for some outcome measures for comparing youth with DS and TD, but they may produce different results when comparing youth with ID and TD.

Emotion Knowledge in Children and Adolescents With Down Syndrome: A New Methodological Approach

“…If so, this could serve as an alternative explanation for the finding of equivalent emotion recognition performance by participants with DS relative to the TD sample. However, there is evidence that the PPVT-4 may serve as a good general estimate of ability for youth with DS, and matching based on either receptive vocabulary or nonverbal ability produces similar results, at least in some DS-TD comparisons (Phillips et al, 2014). This cannot be concluded in the current studies, though, because nonverbal ability was not measured.…”

“…Also, receptive vocabulary has been related to emotion knowledge (Barrett, Lindquist, & Gendron, 2007) and is a common variable taken into account when measuring TD children's emotion recognition abilities (Izard et al, 2001;Izard et al, 2011). Further, receptive vocabulary is commonly used as a matching criterion in DS-TD comparative studies (Phillips, Loveall, Channell, & Conners, 2014) and, compared to other measures of language ability, it is less impaired in DS and is similar to the level of nonverbal ability (Naess, Lyster, Hulme, & MelbyLervåg, 2011).…”

Inferential language use by youth with Down syndrome during narration

“…Expressive language is particularly impaired, with delays observed relative to both receptive language and nonverbal cognitive ability level (Chapman, Seung, Schwartz, & Kay-Raining Bird, 1998; Miller, 1999). Syntax, or grammar, is also particularly impaired relative to other domains of language, such as vocabulary (Abbeduto et al, 2003; Finestack, Sterling, & Abbeduto, 2013; Phillips, Loveall, Channell, & Conners, 2014), with expressive morphosyntax being the most impaired (Chapman & Hesketh, 2000; Finestack & Abbeduto, 2010). Far less is known about the pragmatic language abilities, or social use of language, of individuals with DS, particularly for individuals who have progressed beyond pre-linguistic babbling or single-word use.…”

Consideração da idade mental na avaliação do vocabulário expressivo de crianças com Síndrome de Down

“…The performance of the children with Down syndrome regarding the expressive vocabulary was significantly inferior compared to the performance of children with typical development of the same gender and chronological age (GC2) for usual word designation population, and the language development is coherent with the cognitive skills [4][5][6][7][8]17 .…”

“…The verbal and non-verbal mental age influence the cognitive flexibility of children with DS; there is a direct correlation between the verbal performance and the cognitive flexibility, and between the intellectual quotient and the functional, and participation development [5][6][7][8][9] .…”