Measuring word retrieval deficits in a multilingual child with SLI: Is there a better language?

Kambanaros, Maria; Michaelides, Michalis P.; Grohmann, Kleanthes Κ.

doi:10.1016/j.jneuroling.2014.09.006

Cited by 14 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 57 publications

(45 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

Section: Vocabulary Difficulties In Children With Slimentioning

confidence: 99%

“…They often demonstrate weaknesses in word retrieval and have poor expressive vocabulary skills (Kambanaros, Michaelides, & Grohmann, 2015). Because of these difficulties in the domain of word learning and word knowledge in children with SLI, single-word vocabulary tests are often used to qualify children for speech and language services (Betz, Eickhoff, & Sullivan, 2013).…”

Section: Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In both fast mapping and quick incidental learning tasks, children with SLI learn fewer novel words (Alt, 2011;Alt et al, 2004;Gray, 2004Gray, , 2006Oetting, Rice, & Swank, 1995;Rice, Cleave, & Oetting, 2000;Rice et al, 1994). They also demonstrate weaknesses in word retrieval (Gray, 2004;Gray & Brinkley, 2011;Kambanaros et al, 2015;McGregor, Newman, Reilly, & Capone, 2002), naming errors, and word approximation difficulties (Dollaghan, 1998;Sheng & McGregor, 2010;Spaulding, 2010).Due to these documented deficits in word learning and perhaps to their ease of administration and scoring, vocabulary tests are widely used by clinicians to determine whether a child's language skills require further evaluation (Campbell, Bell, & Keith, 2001), as a method of identifying SLI in children for research studies (Rice et al, 1990;Rice, Buhr, & Oetting, 1992;Rice et al, 1994), or to document vocabulary growth (Rowe, Raudenbush, & Goldin-Meadow, 2012). While numerous comprehensive language batteries are commercially available to clinicians, vocabulary tests are frequently used as a component of diagnostic evaluations of children to determine if a child meets the criteria for SLI (Betz et al, 2013), even though test manuals may not recommend them for this purpose (Brownell, 2000a).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Conceptual Scoring and Classification Accuracy of Vocabulary Testing in Bilingual Children

Anaya

Peña

Bedore

2018

LSHSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 01/10/2018 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx specificity, however, we have no reason to expect high classification accuracy, even if conceptual scoring is used. Thus, we explore the diagnostic accuracy of conceptual vocabulary scoring to determine if using conceptual scoring with single-word vocabulary tests increased their sensitivity so they might contribute to the identification of SLI in bilingual children. Vocabulary Difficulties in Children With SLILexical acquisition deficits are a commonly noted characteristic of SLI in research and clinical practice (Gray, 2004(Gray, , 2005(Gray, , 2006Horohov & Oetting, 2004;Kiernan & Gray, 1998;Nash & Donaldson, 2005;Rice, Oetting, Marquis, Bode, & Pae, 1994;Weismer & Hesketh, 1998). Compared with peers with typically developing (TD) language skills, children with SLI exhibit slower vocabulary growth (Rescorla, Roberts, & Dahlsgaard, 1997), difficulty learning new words (Alt, Plante, & Creusere, 2004;Alt & Suddarth, 2012), and limited expressive vocabulary (Gray & Brinkley, 2011). Experimental studies comparing children with SLI and TD language skills document significant difficulties in word learning. For example, Weismer and Hesketh (1998) found that children with SLI require more exposures to a word to comprehend or produce it than their TD peers. In both fast mapping and quick incidental learning tasks, children with SLI learn fewer novel words (Alt, 2011;Alt et al., 2004;Gray, 2004Gray, , 2006Oetting, Rice, & Swank, 1995;Rice, Cleave, & Oetting, 2000;Rice et al., 1994). They also demonstrate weaknesses in word retrieval (Gray, 2004;Gray & Brinkley, 2011;Kambanaros et al., 2015;McGregor, Newman, Reilly, & Capone, 2002), naming errors, and word approximation difficulties (Dollaghan, 1998;Sheng & McGregor, 2010;Spaulding, 2010).Due to these documented deficits in word learning and perhaps to their ease of administration and scoring, vocabulary tests are widely used by clinicians to determine whether a child's language skills require further evaluation (Campbell, Bell, & Keith, 2001), as a method of identifying SLI in children for research studies (Rice et al., 1990;Rice, Buhr, & Oetting, 1992;Rice et al., 1994), or to document vocabulary growth (Rowe, Raudenbush, & Goldin-Meadow, 2012). While numerous comprehensive language batteries are commercially available to clinicians, vocabulary tests are frequently used as a component of diagnostic evaluations of children to determine if a child meets the criteria for SLI (Betz et al., 2013), even though test manuals may not recommend them for this purpose (Brownell, 2000a). Vocabulary Tests as Indicators of SLITo use vocabulary test scores for screening or identification purposes, clinicians must first be confident that the assessment has evidence of validity and reliability (McCauley & Swisher, 1984). Plante and Vance (1994) suggested that language tests that discriminate between children with and without SLI with an accuracy...

show abstract

Section: Vocabulary Difficulties In Children With Slimentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conceptual Scoring and Classification Accuracy of Vocabulary Testing in Bilingual Children

Anaya

Peña

Bedore

2018

LSHSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…, Kambanaros et al. ). It was thus anticipated that lower ratings would surface, reflecting language problems in all languages.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…) served as the Greek non‐treatment words and a non‐standardized Bulgarian version developed by the authors for research purposes in Cyprus was used as the non‐treatment word list for Bulgarian (see Kambanaros et al. for details on all versions of the WFVT). Ten words from the WFVT were triple BEG non‐treatment cognates (e.g.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross-linguistic transfer effects after phonologically based cognate therapy in a case of multilingual specific language impairment (SLI)

Kambanaros

Michaelides

Grohmann

2016

International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cross-linguistic transfer effects were evident during therapy and after therapy had finished and the effects were maintained 1 month post-treatment. Both the native language (Bulgarian) and the dominant language (Greek) benefitted equally from the treatment of cognates in English. Generalization to non-treatment words was evident, predominantly for English. The results suggest that cognates can indeed be used successfully as a WFD intervention strategy for multilingual children with SLI with lasting effects.

show abstract

Influences of bilingualism and developmental language disorder on how children learn and process words.

Barak¹,

Degani²,

Novogrodsky³

2022

Developmental Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies found that bilingual children and adults with typical language development (TLD) perform better than monolinguals in novel word learning, but show lower scores on lexical retrieval tasks (e.g., naming known words). Children with developmental language disorder (DLD) lack in their abilities in both tasks compared with children with TLD. The current study tested the interplay between bilingualism and language disorder during novel word learning and lexical retrieval. Preschoolers (N = 101; 50 boys and 51 girls; mothers' mean years of education = 16.35) in four groups (Hebrew monolinguals or Russian-Hebrew bilinguals with DLD or TLD) learned 12 novel real words (6 with a familiar referent and 6 with a novel referent) and performed a lexical retrieval task. Children exhibited significant learning with no effect of bilingualism, but a negative effect of language disorder. Thus, children with DLD performed worse than children with TLD, and this ability was not affected by bilingualism. In lexical retrieval, DLD groups scored lower than TLD groups, and critically also bilinguals scored lower than monolinguals. This differential effect of bilingualism in the two tasks suggests that bilingualism does not impede language learning mechanisms even among children with DLD. Instead, the findings suggest that lower performance in the lexical retrieval task is due to decreased frequency of exposure. By exploring both word learning and lexical retrieval, the study highlights the differential mechanisms at play in the effects of bilingualism and language disorder on the developing lexicon.

show abstract

Measuring word retrieval deficits in a multilingual child with SLI: Is there a better language?

Cited by 14 publications

References 57 publications

Conceptual Scoring and Classification Accuracy of Vocabulary Testing in Bilingual Children

Conceptual Scoring and Classification Accuracy of Vocabulary Testing in Bilingual Children

Cross-linguistic transfer effects after phonologically based cognate therapy in a case of multilingual specific language impairment (SLI)

Influences of bilingualism and developmental language disorder on how children learn and process words.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About