Pragmatic Skills in School-Age Children With Primary Language Impairment and Language-Learning Disabilities

Abstract

We conducted a scoping review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses to map the available research describing verbal pragmatic skills development and problems in school-age children with primary language impairments and children with language-learning disabilities. A total of 112 reports met inclusion criteria for our review. Many studies were published in journals focused on communication disorders between the years 2000 and 2019 and targeted K-12 children in the United States or the United Kingdom with developmental language disorder who were most often compared with age-matched typically developing peers using a group comparison research design. Over 60% of the studies had fewer than 25 participants in the target group. Nearly two thirds of study participants were boys, and most were Caucasian from middle- to upper-income families. The majority of studies used multiple outcome measures in data analyses, most often norm-referenced and researcher-designed tests, language sample analysis, and rating scales. A third of studies omitted information about outcome measure reliability and nearly all studies omitted validity data. Several studies are described in detail as examples and a summary of the major findings from the reviewed studies is presented.

“He understands how I work and how I function”: Math teacher actions that promote autonomy among students with LDs and/or EBDs

“…Matthew responded to Irving's question in an autonomysupportive way, directly answering the question and providing him with a hands-on experience to help him understand why it is necessary to consider the arc of a door opening and closing when creating an architectural drawing. Irving responded by acknowledging his overly literal initial understanding of the term ("I thought it meant like a door that was also a swing"), as happens often for students with LDs (see Troia et al, 2023, for a relevant literature review, which is specifically about students with LDs but also includes studies of students with EBDs). However, Matthew normalized Irving's misinterpretation by offering hints that also served as options about how Irving's mix-up could be included in his assignment in an interesting way ("But you could also put in your plan a pocket door that goes into the wall").…”