TY - JOUR
T1 - What our hands tell us
T2 - A two-year follow-up investigating outcomes in subgroups of children with language delay
AU - O’neill, Hilary
AU - Murphy, Carol Anne
AU - Chiat, Shula
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
PY - 2019/2
Y1 - 2019/2
N2 - Purpose: This study followed up children identified with expressive language delay (ELD) or receptive/ expressive language delay (R/ELD) at 2 years of age, Time 1 (T1), in order to identify their language profiles at 4–5 years, Time 2 (T2), and explore relationships to T1 language, gesture use, and symbolic comprehension. Method: Nineteen of 22 children were seen at follow-up (9 of 10 from R/ELD group, 10 of 12 from ELD group). T1 measures assessed receptive and expressive language, gesture use, and symbolic comprehension. At T2, we assessed receptive and expressive language, sentence repetition, and expressive phonology. Results: Outcomes for the R/ELD group were significantly poorer, with all children continuing to have delay in receptive and/or expressive language compared to just 20% of the ELD group. Expressive phonology delay was common in both groups. T1 receptive language showed the most pervasive correlations with T2 language measures, but categorical performance on all three T1 measures correctly predicted language outcomes in 16–17 of the 19 children. Conclusion: Findings add to evidence that receptive language is a strong predictor of outcomes. Gesture use and symbolic comprehension are also strong predictors and clinically valuable as part of play-based assessments with implications for theoretical understanding and intervention planning.
AB - Purpose: This study followed up children identified with expressive language delay (ELD) or receptive/ expressive language delay (R/ELD) at 2 years of age, Time 1 (T1), in order to identify their language profiles at 4–5 years, Time 2 (T2), and explore relationships to T1 language, gesture use, and symbolic comprehension. Method: Nineteen of 22 children were seen at follow-up (9 of 10 from R/ELD group, 10 of 12 from ELD group). T1 measures assessed receptive and expressive language, gesture use, and symbolic comprehension. At T2, we assessed receptive and expressive language, sentence repetition, and expressive phonology. Results: Outcomes for the R/ELD group were significantly poorer, with all children continuing to have delay in receptive and/or expressive language compared to just 20% of the ELD group. Expressive phonology delay was common in both groups. T1 receptive language showed the most pervasive correlations with T2 language measures, but categorical performance on all three T1 measures correctly predicted language outcomes in 16–17 of the 19 children. Conclusion: Findings add to evidence that receptive language is a strong predictor of outcomes. Gesture use and symbolic comprehension are also strong predictors and clinically valuable as part of play-based assessments with implications for theoretical understanding and intervention planning.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85064170475&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-17-0261
DO - 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-17-0261
M3 - Article
C2 - 30950692
AN - SCOPUS:85064170475
SN - 1092-4388
VL - 62
SP - 356
EP - 366
JO - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
JF - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
IS - 2
ER -