Early Speech-Language Impairment and Risk for Written Language Disorder: A Population-Based Study

*Division of Neurology, Department of Speech Pathology and †Department of Psychiatry and Psychology, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN ‡Department of Developmental Medicine, Children's Hospital Boston, Boston, MA §Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics ‖Division of Epidemiology, Department of Health Science Research, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, MN.
Journal of developmental and behavioral pediatrics: JDBP (Impact Factor: 2.13). 01/2013; 34(1):38-44. DOI: 10.1097/DBP.0b013e31827ba22a
Source: PubMed


: To compare risk of written language disorder (WLD) in children with and without speech-language impairment (S/LI) from a population-based cohort.
: Subjects included all children born between 1976 and 1982 in Rochester, Minnesota, who remained in the community after age 5 years (n = 5718). Records from public and private schools, medical agencies, and tutoring services were abstracted. S/LI was determined based on eligibility criteria for an individualized education plan. Incident cases of WLD were identified by research criteria using regression-based discrepancy, non-regression-based discrepancy, and low-achievement formulas applied to cognitive and academic achievement tests. Incidence of WLD (with or without reading disorder [RD]) was compared between children with and without S/LI. Associations were summarized using hazard ratios.
: Cumulative incidence of WLD by age 19 years was significantly higher in children with S/LI than in children without S/LI. The magnitude of association between S/LI and WLD with RD was significantly higher for girls than for boys. This was not true for the association between S/LI and WLD without RD.
: Risk for WLD is significantly increased among children with S/LI compared with children without S/LI based on this population-based cohort. Early identification and intervention for children at risk for WLD could potentially influence academic outcomes.

1 Follower
24 Reads
    • "On the other hand, if RTI is not linked to the nature of an SLD, then failure to respond to whatever intervention is provided fails to provide diagnostic information regarding why the child struggles and how the intervention should be modified to facilitate RTI. Moreover, epidemiological studies conducted by the Mayo Clinic in the US of the incidence of SLDs affecting written language learning, with and without cooccurring ADHD and/or math disabilities, in otherwise typically developing students, have shown that, regardless of definitions used, about 20 % of school age children and youth in the United States probably have some kind of SLD that may interfere with school learning at some time in their education (Katusic et al., 2005; Katusic, Colligan, Barbaresi, Schaid, Jacobsen, 2001; Katusic, Colligan, Weaver, Barbaresi, 2009; Stoeckel et al., 2013; St. Sauver, Katusic, Barbaresi, Colligan, Jacobsen, 2001; Yoshimasu et al., 2011, 2012). Given the frequency with which V. W. Berninger et al. these SLDs occur in the school age population, the overall research goal of the current study, which is part of a larger interdisciplinary programmatic research program on diagnosis and treatment of SLDs during middle childhood and early adolescence, was to use both behavioral and brain data to evaluate potentially converging evidence for differentiating among three of the most prevalent SLDs in school age populations: dysgraphia, dyslexia, and oral and written language learning disability (OWL LD), also referred to as specific language impairment (SLI). "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: In Study 1, children in grades 4–9 (N = 88, 29 females and 59 males) with persisting reading and/or writing disabilities, despite considerable prior specialized instruction in and out of school, were given an evidence-based comprehensive assessment battery at the university while parents completed questionnaires regarding past and current history of language learning and other difficulties. Profiles (patterns) of normed measures for different levels of oral and written language used to categorize participants into diagnostic groups for dysgraphia (impaired subword handwriting) (n = 26), dyslexia (impaired word spelling and reading) (n = 38), or oral and written language learning disability OWL LD (impaired oral and written syntax comprehension and expression) (n = 13) or control oral and written language learners (OWLs) without specific learning disabilities (SLDs) (n = 11) were consistent with reported history. Impairments in working memory components supporting language learning were also examined. In Study 2, right handed children from Study 1 who did not wear braces (controls, n = 9, dysgraphia, n = 14; dyslexia, n = 17, OWL LD, n = 5) completed an fMRI functional connectivity brain imaging study in which they performed a word-specific spelling judgment task, which is related to both word reading and spelling, and may be impaired in dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD for different reasons. fMRI functional connectivity from 4 seed points in brain locations involved in written word processing to other brain regions also differentiated dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD; both specific regions to which connected and overall number of functional connections differed. Thus, results provide converging neurological and behavioral evidence, for dysgraphia, dyslexia, and OWL LD being different, diagnosable SLDs for persisting written language problems during middle childhood and early adolescence. Translation of the research findings into practice at policy and administrative levels and at local school levels is discussed.
    Reading and Writing 04/2015; 28(8). DOI:10.1007/s11145-015-9565-0 · 1.44 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Developmental learning disorders are known to cause a great amount of psychological and mental stress to the kids and their parents. They affect lives in an adverse manner. Early diagnosis and the right kind of intervention can help the child attain academic standards on par with their peers as seen in this case. [Azra Kirmani , Hanan Ahmad Al-Kadi, Rahila Iftikhar and Yusuf Mayat. A case report of a dyslexic child with an above average IQ, responding to remedial intervention (Dyslexia-Case Report). Life Sci J
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Effectiveness of iPad computerized writing instruction was evaluated for 4th-9th graders (n = 35) with diagnosed specific learning disabilities (SLDs) affecting writing: dysgraphia (impaired handwriting), dyslexia (impaired spelling), and oral and written language learning disability (OWL LD) (impaired syntax composing). Each of the 18 two-hour lessons had multiple learning activities aimed at improving subword- (handwriting), word- (spelling), and syntax- (sentence composing) level language skills by engaging all four language systems (listening, speaking, reading, and writing) to create a functional writing system. To evaluate treatment effectiveness, normed measures of handwriting, spelling, and composing were used with the exception of one non-normed alphabet writing task. Results showed that the sample as a whole improved significantly from pretest to posttest in three handwriting measures, four spelling measures, and both written and oral syntax construction measures. All but oral syntax was evaluated with pen and paper tasks, showing that the computer writing instruction transferred to better writing with pen and paper. Performance on learning activities during instruction correlated with writing outcomes; and individual students tended to improve in the impaired skill associated with their diagnosis. Thus, although computers are often used in upper elementary school and middle school in the United States (US) for accommodations (alternatives to pen and paper) for students with persisting SLDs affecting writing, this study shows computers can also be used for Tier 3 instruction to improve the writing skills of students in grades 4-9 with history of persisting writing disabilities.
    Computers & Education 02/2015; 81. DOI:10.1016/j.compedu.2014.10.005 · 2.56 Impact Factor