Non‐word repetition performance in Slovak‐speaking children with and without SLI: novel scoring methods

Kapalková, Svetlana; Polišenská, Kamila; Vicenová, Zuzana

doi:10.1111/j.1460-6984.2012.00189.x

Cited by 27 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…NWR has been found to distinguish children with SLI from typically developing children by showing high sensitivity and specificity. Lately, poor NWR has been reported as a clinical marker for SLI in several languages such as Spanish [22], Dutch [23], French [24], Italian [25], and Slovak [26]. Such studies are, however, lacking in Swedish-speaking children.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonword Repetition – A Clinical Marker for Specific Language Impairment in Swedish Associated with Parents’ Language-Related Problems

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

First, we explore the performance of nonword repetition (NWR) in children with specific language impairment (SLI) and typically developing children (TD) in order to investigate the accuracy of NWR as a clinical marker for SLI in Swedish-speaking school-age children. Second, we examine the relationship between NWR, family aggregation, and parental level of education in children with SLI. A sample of 61 children with SLI, and 86 children with TD, aged 8–12 years, were administered an NWR test. Family aggregation, measured as the prevalence of language and/or literacy problems (LLP) in parents of the children with SLI, was based on family history interviews. The sensitivity and specificity of nonword repetition was analyzed in a binary logistic regression, cut-off values were established with ROC curves, and positive and negative likelihood ratios reported. Results from the present study show that NWR distinguishes well between Swedish-speaking school-children with and without SLI. We found 90.2% sensitivity and 97.7% specificity at a cut-off level of −2 standard deviations for binary scoring of nonwords. Differences between the SLI and TD groups showed large effect sizes for the two scoring measures binary (d = 2.11) and percent correct consonants (PCC) (d = 1.79). The children with SLI were split into two subgroups: those with no parents affected with LLP (n = 12), and those with one or both parents affected (n = 49). The subgroup consisting of affected parents had a significantly lower score on NWR binary (p = .037), and there was a great difference between the subgroups (d = 0.7). When compared to the TD group, the difference from the subgroup with affected parents was almost one standard deviation larger (d = 2.47) than the difference from the TD to the subgroup consisting of non-affected parents (d = 1.57). Our study calls for further exploration of the complex interaction between family aggregation, language input, and phenotypes of SLI.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonword Repetition – A Clinical Marker for Specific Language Impairment in Swedish Associated with Parents’ Language-Related Problems

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…and Kapalkovα et al . found in their study that children repeat high word-like nonwords better than low word-likes;[3346] this finding implies the influence of accumulated language knowledge on the performance of item repetition. The results of Dispaldro et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…The NWR task used in their study differs from English NWR tasks in number of items per length and scoring methods. [33] As could be seen in Table 3, whole-item scoring method (number of correctly repeated consonants) has good sensitivity and specificity, but the diagnostic performance of vowel scoring method (number of correctly repeated vowels in addition consonants) is not fair due to the sensitivity of 75%. As Archibald and Gathercole et al .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review on diagnostic procedures for specific language impairment: The sensitivity and specificity issues

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Identification of children with specific language impairment (SLI) has been viewed as both necessity and challenge. Investigators and clinicians use different tests and measures for this purpose. Some of these tests/measures have good psychometric properties, but it is not sufficient for diagnostic purposes. A diagnostic procedure can be used for identification a specific population with confidence only when its sensitivity and specificity are acceptable. In this study, we searched for tests/measures with predefined sensitivity and specificity for identification of preschool children with SLI from their typically developing peers.Materials and Methods:A computerized search in bibliographic databases from 2000 to August 2015 was performed with the following keywords: “specific language impairment” or SLI” and “primary language impairment” or ‘PLI’ with at least one of the followings: “diagnosis,” “identification,” “accuracy,” “sensitivity,” and “specificity.” In addition, the related citations and reference lists of the selected articles were considered.Results:The results of reviewing 23 included studies show that the index measures used in studies vary in accuracy with the sensitivity ranging from 16% to 100% and the specificity ranging from 14% to 100%.Conclusion:These varieties in sensitivity and specificity of different tests/measures confirm the necessity of attention to the diagnostic power of tests/measures before their use as diagnostic tool. Further, the results indicate there are some promising tests/measures that the available evidence supports their performances in the diagnosis of SLI in preschool-aged children, yet the place of a reference standard for the diagnosis of SLI is vacant among investigations.

show abstract

“…In cases of articulation or phonological disorders, assessment and therapy typically focus on consonants rather than vowels (Gibbon , Kapalková et al . ). In spite of these facts, there were a disproportionate number of vowel errors in the current study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The phoneme frequency analysis included a general analysis of all phonemes, and based on evidence that accuracy may be different for consonants and vowels (Kapalková et al . ), consonants and vowels were analysed separately. The phoneme co‐occurrence analysis included substitutions only in syllables in which syllable structure was maintained.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Nonword repetition errors of children with and without specific language impairments (SLI)

Burke

Coady

2014

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Two ubiquitous findings from the literature are that (1) children with specific language impairments (SLI) repeat nonwords less accurately than peers with typical language development (TLD), and (2) all children repeat nonwords with frequent phonotactic patterns more accurately than low-probability nonwords. Many studies have examined repetition accuracy, but little work has examined children’s errors. Aims To examine nonword repetition errors from a previously published study in terms of phonotactic probability. Methods & Procedures Eighteen children with SLI (mean age = 9;2) and 18 age-matched controls (mean age = 8;11) repeated three- and four-syllable nonwords. Substitutions were analysed in terms of phoneme frequency and phonotactic probability of the syllable containing the substitution. Outcomes & Results Results for all children show that phoneme substitutions generally involved replacement with more frequently occurring phonemes. Also, the resulting phonotactic probability within syllables containing substitutions was greater than the probability of the targets. This trend did not differ by group. Conclusions & Implications These results suggest that both children with SLI and children with TLD substitute less frequent phonemes with more frequent ones, and less probabilistic syllables with higher probability ones.

show abstract

Non‐word repetition performance in Slovak‐speaking children with and without SLI: novel scoring methods

Cited by 27 publications

References 23 publications

Nonword Repetition – A Clinical Marker for Specific Language Impairment in Swedish Associated with Parents’ Language-Related Problems

Nonword Repetition – A Clinical Marker for Specific Language Impairment in Swedish Associated with Parents’ Language-Related Problems

A systematic review on diagnostic procedures for specific language impairment: The sensitivity and specificity issues

Nonword repetition errors of children with and without specific language impairments (SLI)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About