Bilingual Children With Nonsyndromic Cleft Lip and/or Palate: Language and Memory Skills
ABSTRACT Research shows that monolingual children with cleft lip and/or palate (CLP) have a higher incidence of cognitive-linguistic deficits, but it is not clear whether bilingual preschool children with CLP are especially vulnerable because they need to acquire 2 languages. We tested the hypothesis that bilingual children with CLP score lower than bilingual children with typical development (TD) on receptive vocabulary, verbal memory, and visuospatial memory.
Participants were 86 bilingual CLP children and 100 TD children 3-6 years of age, dominant in English or Mandarin. Each child completed assessments of English and Mandarin vocabulary, verbal and visuospatial short-term and working memory, hearing, and articulation.
With analysis of covariance controlling for age and dominant language, no group differences were found between the CLP and TD bilingual children, although a correlational analysis indicated discrepancies in the relationship between variables.
The findings do not support the hypothesis that preschool children with CLP score lower than preschool children with TD on receptive vocabulary and memory measures. Longitudinal research examining literacy skill development is needed to establish whether the deficits reported for school-age monolingual children with CLP become more obvious in bilingual children in later years, especially when the medium of instruction is the child's nondominant language.
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Objective : To compare the cognitive-linguistic processes underlying spelling performance of children with cleft lip and/or palate with those of typically developing children. Design : An assessment battery including tests of hearing, articulation, verbal short-term and working memory, and phonological awareness, as well as word and nonword spelling, was administered to both groups. Participants : A total of 15 children with nonsyndromic cleft lip and/or palate were case-matched by age and sex to 15 typically developing children. The children were aged between 6 and 8 years and were bilingual, with English the dominant language. Results : Wilcoxon signed-rank tests revealed that the performance of children with cleft lip and/or palate was significantly poorer on phoneme deletion and nonword spelling (P < .05) compared with typically developing children. Spearman correlation analyses revealed different relationships between the cognitive-linguistic and spelling measures for the cleft lip and/or palate and typically developing groups. Conclusions : Children with cleft lip and/or palate underachieve in phonological awareness and spelling skills. To facilitate early intervention for literacy problems, speech-language pathologists should routinely assess the cognitive-linguistic processing of children with cleft lip and/or palate, especially phonological awareness, as part of their case management protocols.The Cleft Palate-Craniofacial Journal 03/2014; 52(1). DOI:10.1597/13-120 · 1.11 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: This study examined whether there are processing differences between children with Down syndrome (DS; n = 22; 7 years 8 months to 13 years 10 months) and typically developing children (TD; n = 22; 6 years 6 months to 10 years 10 months), matched for receptive vocabulary. The TD children performed better on tests of nonverbal intelligence (matrices), phonological awareness (sound deletion), and phonological short-term memory (digit span), as well as spelling accuracy (30 single words). Separate regression analyses revealed that nonverbal intelligence and phonological awareness were the best predictors of spelling accuracy for TD children, whereas receptive vocabulary and phonological short-term memory were the best predictors for children with DS. An examination of spelling errors suggested that although children with DS do use some phonological awareness during spelling, deficits in short-term memory appear to limit success. The implications of these results for intervention studies are briefly discussed.Scientific Studies of Reading 05/2014; 18(3). DOI:10.1080/10888438.2013.862247 · 1.86 Impact Factor