The document summarizes a study comparing the language and phonological skills of children at high risk of reading difficulties due to speech difficulties and those with a family history of dyslexia. The two at-risk groups performed similarly, with average vocabulary but poor speech processing, phonological learning, awareness, and reading development. Both groups showed deficits in developing phonological representations, suggesting similar antecedents of reading difficulty.
Pragmatic language impairment in relation to autism and SLIDorothy Bishop
Bishop DVM. 2000. Pragmatic language impairment: a correlate of SLI, a distinct subgroup, or part of the autistic continuum? In: Bishop DVM, and Leonard LB, eds. Speech and Language Impairments in Children: Causes, Characteristics, Intervention and Outcome. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 99-113.
Speech and language disorders (2008) Bishop & NorburyDorothy Bishop
1. The document discusses speech, language, and communication, and how they are related but distinct. Speech is a subset of language, and language is a subset of communication.
2. It provides examples of three child cases (Emma, Thomas, and Jack) to illustrate differences between speech, language, and communication abilities.
3. When assessing children for potential speech, language, or communication disorders, practitioners should consider each domain separately since problems in one do not necessarily mean problems in another. Informal interactions can provide insights into a child's expressive and receptive language abilities.
1. Specific language impairment (SLI) can occur in bilingual children as well as monolingual children, and bilingualism does not cause SLI. Signs of SLI are the same across languages and include difficulties with word learning, sentence understanding, and explaining things.
2. Code switching between languages is normal for bilingual children but may make assessing SLI difficult. It is important for assessors to distinguish between typical code switching and actual language errors that could indicate SLI. Difficulties linking words across languages may signal SLI.
3. While bilingual children may lag behind monolingual peers in one language alone, having vocabulary difficulties in both languages could indicate SLI. Sil
SLI is identified through a combination of standardized language tests, parental reports of language difficulties, and clinical judgment. Bishop (2004, 2009) and Bishop and Norbury (2008) discuss using both language test scores and parental reports to properly identify SLI in children. Tomblin et al. (1996, 1997) developed systems for diagnosing SLI in kindergarten-aged children using standardized language assessments. Cohen (1996) notes that unidentified language impairments are common in psychiatrically disturbed children.
This document summarizes research on language skills in individuals with Down syndrome. Key points include:
- Language production is more impaired than comprehension in Down syndrome. Approximately 50% of children under 36 months have limited lexical production compared to typically developing peers.
- Comprehension skills are less affected. Studies show similar comprehension scores in Down syndrome when paired with typically developing children of equivalent mental age.
- Factors that may contribute to production difficulties include cognitive delay, auditory processing problems, articulation difficulties, and reduced access to education. However, the language profile cannot be fully explained by cognitive deficits alone.
- Both comprehension and production of morphosyntactic markers like gender, number, and tense are impaired relative to
Bishop, D. V. M. (2009). Genes, cognition and communication: insights from neurodevelopmental disorders. The Year in Cognitive Neuroscience: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 1-18.
Pragmatic language impairment in relation to autism and SLIDorothy Bishop
Bishop DVM. 2000. Pragmatic language impairment: a correlate of SLI, a distinct subgroup, or part of the autistic continuum? In: Bishop DVM, and Leonard LB, eds. Speech and Language Impairments in Children: Causes, Characteristics, Intervention and Outcome. Hove, UK: Psychology Press, 99-113.
Speech and language disorders (2008) Bishop & NorburyDorothy Bishop
1. The document discusses speech, language, and communication, and how they are related but distinct. Speech is a subset of language, and language is a subset of communication.
2. It provides examples of three child cases (Emma, Thomas, and Jack) to illustrate differences between speech, language, and communication abilities.
3. When assessing children for potential speech, language, or communication disorders, practitioners should consider each domain separately since problems in one do not necessarily mean problems in another. Informal interactions can provide insights into a child's expressive and receptive language abilities.
1. Specific language impairment (SLI) can occur in bilingual children as well as monolingual children, and bilingualism does not cause SLI. Signs of SLI are the same across languages and include difficulties with word learning, sentence understanding, and explaining things.
2. Code switching between languages is normal for bilingual children but may make assessing SLI difficult. It is important for assessors to distinguish between typical code switching and actual language errors that could indicate SLI. Difficulties linking words across languages may signal SLI.
3. While bilingual children may lag behind monolingual peers in one language alone, having vocabulary difficulties in both languages could indicate SLI. Sil
SLI is identified through a combination of standardized language tests, parental reports of language difficulties, and clinical judgment. Bishop (2004, 2009) and Bishop and Norbury (2008) discuss using both language test scores and parental reports to properly identify SLI in children. Tomblin et al. (1996, 1997) developed systems for diagnosing SLI in kindergarten-aged children using standardized language assessments. Cohen (1996) notes that unidentified language impairments are common in psychiatrically disturbed children.
This document summarizes research on language skills in individuals with Down syndrome. Key points include:
- Language production is more impaired than comprehension in Down syndrome. Approximately 50% of children under 36 months have limited lexical production compared to typically developing peers.
- Comprehension skills are less affected. Studies show similar comprehension scores in Down syndrome when paired with typically developing children of equivalent mental age.
- Factors that may contribute to production difficulties include cognitive delay, auditory processing problems, articulation difficulties, and reduced access to education. However, the language profile cannot be fully explained by cognitive deficits alone.
- Both comprehension and production of morphosyntactic markers like gender, number, and tense are impaired relative to
Bishop, D. V. M. (2009). Genes, cognition and communication: insights from neurodevelopmental disorders. The Year in Cognitive Neuroscience: Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1156, 1-18.
SLI is identified through a combination of standardized language tests, parental reports of language difficulties, and clinical judgement. Bishop (2004, 2009) and Bishop & Norbury (2008) discuss the diagnostic dilemmas of SLI and how combining test scores and parental reports can help with identification. Tomblin et al. (1996, 1997) developed systems for diagnosing SLI in kindergarten-aged children using standardized tests. Cohen (1996) notes that language impairments are sometimes unsuspected in psychiatrically disturbed children.
Reading List 2016; "Why do some children find language so hard to learn?"Dorothy Bishop
Reading list for talk "Why do some children find language so hard to learn?"
Dorothy V. M. Bishop
VIIIth International Conference of Language Acquisition
Palma de Mallorca, Spain
6-9th September
How is specific language impairment identified?RALLICampaign
Specific language impairment (SLI) is identified in children when their language development falls significantly behind peers despite having normal nonverbal abilities, hearing, and environment. SLI is assessed through parental reports, direct observation of the child's communication, and standardized language tests in areas like vocabulary, grammar, and narrative skills. A child is identified as having SLI if they score below the 10th percentile on two or more standardized language assessments and have average nonverbal problem-solving skills. Assessing both language and nonverbal abilities provides a comprehensive evaluation of a child's communication development and needs.
Preprint of:
Bishop, D. V. M. (2004). Specific language impairment: diagnostic dilemmas. In L. Verhoeven & H. Van Balkom (Eds.), Classification of Developmental Language Disorders (pp. 309-326). Mahwah, NJ.: Erlbaum.
How is specific language impairment identifiedDorothy Bishop
Specific language impairment (SLI) is identified in children when their language development falls significantly behind that of other children their age and cannot be explained by other factors like hearing loss, brain damage, or lack of experience with language. SLI is assessed through a combination of parental reports, direct observation of the child's communication skills, and standardized language tests in areas like vocabulary, grammar, and narrative skills. While test scores provide objective measures, both parental input and a variety of language assessments are needed to fully understand a child's language abilities and identify whether they have SLI.
This document summarizes a study on the language development of monolingual English and bilingual Spanish-English Hispanic children in preschool. The study found:
1) There were no significant differences between the groups in key emergent literacy skills like syntax, phonological awareness, and print knowledge. This suggests dual language learning is not a risk factor for poorer English reading.
2) Background factors like SES, parental education, and home language environment predicted skills similarly in both groups.
3) For bilingual children, their combined vocabulary knowledge in both languages, rather than just English vocabulary, facilitated phonological awareness development in English. Maintaining separate vocabularies in two languages seems to benefit phonological processing.
SLI, or specific language impairment, is a common speech and language disorder. Several studies have found that between 3-7% of kindergarten aged children have a diagnosis of SLI. Longitudinal studies show that language delays in early childhood often persist into the school-aged years without treatment. The prevalence and prognosis of SLI has been well-documented in multiple epidemiological studies published between 1978-2012.
11.pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specifiedAlexander Decker
This document presents a case study analyzing the interaction patterns between a mother and her child diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS). The study observed and analyzed a video recorded interaction between the mother and child. It found that the mother's language functions used most frequently were direct directives, closed questions, and open questions. Language modeling and reinforcement of language, which are important for language acquisition, were used less frequently. This suggests the mother's interaction style may be maintaining the child's inadequate language abilities through a lack of modeling and feedback. The study aims to better understand atypical parent-child interaction patterns seen in children with autism spectrum disorders.
Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specifiedAlexander Decker
The document discusses a case study of the interaction between a mother and her child diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS). It provides background on PDD-NOS and deficits in social reciprocity skills. The study found that the mother's interaction style with her child with PDD-NOS was different than mothers of neurotypical children, which could impact the child's language development.
1) Specific language impairment (SLI) is diagnosed in children when language development is atypical and not caused by other issues like hearing loss or brain damage.
2) Several theories have been proposed for the causes of SLI, including inadequate language input from parents, problems with speech perception from conditions like otitis media, and abnormal neurodevelopment in language areas of the brain.
3) While poor language environment and speech perception issues are plausible contributing factors, evidence suggests they are not primary causes, as children with atypical language input or hearing issues do not always develop SLI. Genetic factors are likely involved given family aggregation studies.
1) Some children have difficulties using language for social purposes that increase risks for social, emotional, and academic problems. This condition, called social (pragmatic) communication disorder, is controversial due to unclear diagnostic criteria and challenges assessing social communication.
2) The inclusion and exclusion criteria for social (pragmatic) communication disorder in the DSM-5 are unsupported, as children often have additional language and cognitive impairments. Intervention programs aim to improve social understanding, language skills, and social experience to reduce negative outcomes.
3) Better assessments are needed to evaluate social communication abilities and treatment effectiveness given the links between structural language, pragmatics, and social behavior.
Dorothy Bishop gave a lecture on the difficulty of agreeing on definitions and terminology for children's language disorders. She discussed how different disciplines and countries use varying definitions and labels for conditions like specific language impairment. Bishop highlighted research she has conducted using the CATALISE project, a multinational Delphi consensus study, to try to establish common terminology through an expert review process. However, she noted there are still sticking points in reaching full agreement across all perspectives.
This literature review examines accommodations for Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) students taking the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) test in Australia. DHH students are a diverse group with varying degrees of hearing loss and language exposure. The review finds that DHH students are often educationally disadvantaged due to linguistic differences between spoken and signed languages. Studies show native signers experience delays in language development and DHH adults have lower literacy levels than hearing peers. The review suggests DHH students may need accommodations for NAPLAN tests to allow for their diverse needs and experiences.
Why Do Some Children Find Language So Hard to Learn?Dorothy Bishop
This document discusses specific language impairment (SLI) in children. It summarizes that:
1) SLI causes language development to deviate from the typical course even though other areas develop normally, and is not due to hearing loss, physical issues, or brain damage.
2) Children with SLI often struggle with phonology and sentence comprehension.
3) Previous theories proposed that SLI is caused by auditory processing or short-term memory deficits, but recent studies found computerized training did not consistently help, and not all children with SLI have auditory issues.
4) A new study found that children with SLI learned vocabulary and sentences at a similar rate to controls when material was repeated,
This document summarizes several studies that have examined prosody production and perception in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). It finds that existing research on this topic is limited, with few studies exploring both production and perception aspects of prosody in ASD. The studies reviewed found that individuals with ASD have difficulties with prosodic aspects like stress and detecting emotion from tone of voice. They also found relationships between prosody and language abilities in ASD. However, more research is still needed that looks at both production and perception of prosody together, especially in young children with ASD.
1) Specific language impairment (SLI) is not caused by brain damage like aphasia in adults, as brain scans do not typically show injuries in children with SLI unless they have other neurological issues.
2) Some studies have found subtle abnormalities in brain structure and function associated with SLI, such as minor differences in grey matter volumes or reduced activity in language areas during tasks.
3) People with a history of SLI may show weaker lateralization of language functions to the left side of the brain compared to typically developing individuals. However, the evidence from brain studies is mixed and abnormalities are often subtle or not present in all individuals with SLI.
Slides to accompany RALLIcampaign YouTube presentation by Professor Dorothy Bishop on Genetics and SLI
A full-length videoed lecture on this topic can be found here:
http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/languages-disorders-children-what-can-they-tell-us-about-genes-and-brains-video
OR audio version here:
http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/languages-disorders-children-what-can-they-tell-us-about-genes-and-brains-audio
Autism and specific language impairment both involve problems with language and communcation, so how are they distinguished? This slide show accompanies a youtube video for the RALLI campaign.
http://www.youtube.com/rallicampaign
This document discusses the evolution of voseo (use of vos pronoun and corresponding verb forms) versus tuteo (use of tu pronoun and verb forms) in addressing a singular person in Rio de la Plata Spanish. It finds that voseo first replaced tuteo in the imperative form, then in the present indicative, but lagged behind and eventually receded in the present subjunctive. This sequence mirrors the order of acquisition of verb forms by children learning Spanish as their first language. The author argues this suggests language change was driven by children acquiring the language, not just social factors, as they reinterpreted input in a way consistent with their developmental stages of acquisition.
Child language acquisition and the subsystemsZaraSul
This document explores child language acquisition through analyzing a transcript of a child's conversation. It describes the stages of language development, including the non-verbal stage, holophrastic stage using single words, two-word stage with simple sentences, and telegraphic stage with more complex sentences typical of toddlers. The transcript shows the child responding with short responses, some mispronunciations, and not fully understanding depth of questions.
SLI is identified through a combination of standardized language tests, parental reports of language difficulties, and clinical judgement. Bishop (2004, 2009) and Bishop & Norbury (2008) discuss the diagnostic dilemmas of SLI and how combining test scores and parental reports can help with identification. Tomblin et al. (1996, 1997) developed systems for diagnosing SLI in kindergarten-aged children using standardized tests. Cohen (1996) notes that language impairments are sometimes unsuspected in psychiatrically disturbed children.
Reading List 2016; "Why do some children find language so hard to learn?"Dorothy Bishop
Reading list for talk "Why do some children find language so hard to learn?"
Dorothy V. M. Bishop
VIIIth International Conference of Language Acquisition
Palma de Mallorca, Spain
6-9th September
How is specific language impairment identified?RALLICampaign
Specific language impairment (SLI) is identified in children when their language development falls significantly behind peers despite having normal nonverbal abilities, hearing, and environment. SLI is assessed through parental reports, direct observation of the child's communication, and standardized language tests in areas like vocabulary, grammar, and narrative skills. A child is identified as having SLI if they score below the 10th percentile on two or more standardized language assessments and have average nonverbal problem-solving skills. Assessing both language and nonverbal abilities provides a comprehensive evaluation of a child's communication development and needs.
Preprint of:
Bishop, D. V. M. (2004). Specific language impairment: diagnostic dilemmas. In L. Verhoeven & H. Van Balkom (Eds.), Classification of Developmental Language Disorders (pp. 309-326). Mahwah, NJ.: Erlbaum.
How is specific language impairment identifiedDorothy Bishop
Specific language impairment (SLI) is identified in children when their language development falls significantly behind that of other children their age and cannot be explained by other factors like hearing loss, brain damage, or lack of experience with language. SLI is assessed through a combination of parental reports, direct observation of the child's communication skills, and standardized language tests in areas like vocabulary, grammar, and narrative skills. While test scores provide objective measures, both parental input and a variety of language assessments are needed to fully understand a child's language abilities and identify whether they have SLI.
This document summarizes a study on the language development of monolingual English and bilingual Spanish-English Hispanic children in preschool. The study found:
1) There were no significant differences between the groups in key emergent literacy skills like syntax, phonological awareness, and print knowledge. This suggests dual language learning is not a risk factor for poorer English reading.
2) Background factors like SES, parental education, and home language environment predicted skills similarly in both groups.
3) For bilingual children, their combined vocabulary knowledge in both languages, rather than just English vocabulary, facilitated phonological awareness development in English. Maintaining separate vocabularies in two languages seems to benefit phonological processing.
SLI, or specific language impairment, is a common speech and language disorder. Several studies have found that between 3-7% of kindergarten aged children have a diagnosis of SLI. Longitudinal studies show that language delays in early childhood often persist into the school-aged years without treatment. The prevalence and prognosis of SLI has been well-documented in multiple epidemiological studies published between 1978-2012.
11.pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specifiedAlexander Decker
This document presents a case study analyzing the interaction patterns between a mother and her child diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS). The study observed and analyzed a video recorded interaction between the mother and child. It found that the mother's language functions used most frequently were direct directives, closed questions, and open questions. Language modeling and reinforcement of language, which are important for language acquisition, were used less frequently. This suggests the mother's interaction style may be maintaining the child's inadequate language abilities through a lack of modeling and feedback. The study aims to better understand atypical parent-child interaction patterns seen in children with autism spectrum disorders.
Pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specifiedAlexander Decker
The document discusses a case study of the interaction between a mother and her child diagnosed with Pervasive Developmental Disorder Not Otherwise Specified (PDD-NOS). It provides background on PDD-NOS and deficits in social reciprocity skills. The study found that the mother's interaction style with her child with PDD-NOS was different than mothers of neurotypical children, which could impact the child's language development.
1) Specific language impairment (SLI) is diagnosed in children when language development is atypical and not caused by other issues like hearing loss or brain damage.
2) Several theories have been proposed for the causes of SLI, including inadequate language input from parents, problems with speech perception from conditions like otitis media, and abnormal neurodevelopment in language areas of the brain.
3) While poor language environment and speech perception issues are plausible contributing factors, evidence suggests they are not primary causes, as children with atypical language input or hearing issues do not always develop SLI. Genetic factors are likely involved given family aggregation studies.
1) Some children have difficulties using language for social purposes that increase risks for social, emotional, and academic problems. This condition, called social (pragmatic) communication disorder, is controversial due to unclear diagnostic criteria and challenges assessing social communication.
2) The inclusion and exclusion criteria for social (pragmatic) communication disorder in the DSM-5 are unsupported, as children often have additional language and cognitive impairments. Intervention programs aim to improve social understanding, language skills, and social experience to reduce negative outcomes.
3) Better assessments are needed to evaluate social communication abilities and treatment effectiveness given the links between structural language, pragmatics, and social behavior.
Dorothy Bishop gave a lecture on the difficulty of agreeing on definitions and terminology for children's language disorders. She discussed how different disciplines and countries use varying definitions and labels for conditions like specific language impairment. Bishop highlighted research she has conducted using the CATALISE project, a multinational Delphi consensus study, to try to establish common terminology through an expert review process. However, she noted there are still sticking points in reaching full agreement across all perspectives.
This literature review examines accommodations for Deaf and Hard of Hearing (DHH) students taking the National Assessment Program – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) test in Australia. DHH students are a diverse group with varying degrees of hearing loss and language exposure. The review finds that DHH students are often educationally disadvantaged due to linguistic differences between spoken and signed languages. Studies show native signers experience delays in language development and DHH adults have lower literacy levels than hearing peers. The review suggests DHH students may need accommodations for NAPLAN tests to allow for their diverse needs and experiences.
Why Do Some Children Find Language So Hard to Learn?Dorothy Bishop
This document discusses specific language impairment (SLI) in children. It summarizes that:
1) SLI causes language development to deviate from the typical course even though other areas develop normally, and is not due to hearing loss, physical issues, or brain damage.
2) Children with SLI often struggle with phonology and sentence comprehension.
3) Previous theories proposed that SLI is caused by auditory processing or short-term memory deficits, but recent studies found computerized training did not consistently help, and not all children with SLI have auditory issues.
4) A new study found that children with SLI learned vocabulary and sentences at a similar rate to controls when material was repeated,
This document summarizes several studies that have examined prosody production and perception in individuals with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). It finds that existing research on this topic is limited, with few studies exploring both production and perception aspects of prosody in ASD. The studies reviewed found that individuals with ASD have difficulties with prosodic aspects like stress and detecting emotion from tone of voice. They also found relationships between prosody and language abilities in ASD. However, more research is still needed that looks at both production and perception of prosody together, especially in young children with ASD.
1) Specific language impairment (SLI) is not caused by brain damage like aphasia in adults, as brain scans do not typically show injuries in children with SLI unless they have other neurological issues.
2) Some studies have found subtle abnormalities in brain structure and function associated with SLI, such as minor differences in grey matter volumes or reduced activity in language areas during tasks.
3) People with a history of SLI may show weaker lateralization of language functions to the left side of the brain compared to typically developing individuals. However, the evidence from brain studies is mixed and abnormalities are often subtle or not present in all individuals with SLI.
Slides to accompany RALLIcampaign YouTube presentation by Professor Dorothy Bishop on Genetics and SLI
A full-length videoed lecture on this topic can be found here:
http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/languages-disorders-children-what-can-they-tell-us-about-genes-and-brains-video
OR audio version here:
http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/languages-disorders-children-what-can-they-tell-us-about-genes-and-brains-audio
Autism and specific language impairment both involve problems with language and communcation, so how are they distinguished? This slide show accompanies a youtube video for the RALLI campaign.
http://www.youtube.com/rallicampaign
This document discusses the evolution of voseo (use of vos pronoun and corresponding verb forms) versus tuteo (use of tu pronoun and verb forms) in addressing a singular person in Rio de la Plata Spanish. It finds that voseo first replaced tuteo in the imperative form, then in the present indicative, but lagged behind and eventually receded in the present subjunctive. This sequence mirrors the order of acquisition of verb forms by children learning Spanish as their first language. The author argues this suggests language change was driven by children acquiring the language, not just social factors, as they reinterpreted input in a way consistent with their developmental stages of acquisition.
Child language acquisition and the subsystemsZaraSul
This document explores child language acquisition through analyzing a transcript of a child's conversation. It describes the stages of language development, including the non-verbal stage, holophrastic stage using single words, two-word stage with simple sentences, and telegraphic stage with more complex sentences typical of toddlers. The transcript shows the child responding with short responses, some mispronunciations, and not fully understanding depth of questions.
There are four main stages of first language acquisition:
1. Pre-speech stage from 0-12 months where infants learn speech patterns without using words.
2. One-word ("holophrastic") stage from 12-18 months where children use single words to communicate ideas.
3. Two-word stage from 18-24 months where children start combining two words in sentences.
4. Telegraphic stage from 24-36 months where children use multiple word sentences that may be grammatically incomplete. Language acquisition is supported by an innate capacity and occurs through imitation and understanding of concepts before words.
Children acquire phonology over several years, beginning with babbling in the first year. In the second year, children produce their first words which start with simple syllables and a limited set of sounds. In subsequent years, children learn to pronounce an extensive vocabulary as their sounds and syllables increase in number and complexity. Phonological processes describe common error patterns observed as children acquire their native language's phonology.
Language Acquisition: Lecture 2 Phonological Developmentsuascolleges
This lecture discusses phonological development in children from ages 1 to 7. It outlines the stages of crying, cooing, and babbling in the first year. By age 2 1/2, children have mastered most vowels and 2/3 of consonants, with difficulty remaining for a few consonants by age 4. Sounds are used correctly first at beginnings of words. To make words easier, children may delete or substitute sounds. While speech may lag comprehension, studies show children can understand sounds they cannot pronounce. Intonation understanding continues developing into the teenage years.
Language Acquisition: Lecture 4 Grammatical Development 1suascolleges
This document summarizes the key stages of grammatical development in children. It discusses the one-word stage between 12-18 months, where children use single words. Around 18 months children enter the two-word stage, producing grammatically correct word pairs. At age 2 the telegraphic stage begins, using 3-4 word utterances that may omit grammatical elements. Rapid progress continues such that by age 3 determiners are used regularly and multiple clauses appear, showing the child's growing syntactic abilities.
Language-impaired preschoolers: A follow-up into adolescence.Dorothy Bishop
Stothard, S. E., Snowling, M. J., Bishop, D. V., Chipchase, B. B., & Kaplan, C. A. (1998). Language-impaired preschoolers: A follow-up into adolescence. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research: JSLHR, 41(2), 407–418. https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4102.407
ABSTRACT: This paper reports a longitudinal follow-up of 71 adolescents with a preschool history of speech-language impairment, originally studied by Bishop and Edmundson (1987). These children had been subdivided at 4 years into those with nonverbal IQ 2 SD below the mean (General Delay group), and those with normal nonverbal intelligence (SLI group). At age 5;6 the SLI group was subdivided into those whose language problems had resolved, and those with persistent SLI. The General Delay group was also followed up. At age 15-16 years, these children were compared with age-matched normal-language controls on a battery of tests of spoken language and literacy skills. Children whose language problems had resolved did not differ from controls on tests of vocabulary and language comprehension skills. However, they performed significantly less well on tests of phonological processing and literacy skill. Children who still had significant language difficulties at 5;6 had significant impairments in all aspects of spoken and written language functioning, as did children classified as having a general delay. These children fell further and further behind their peer group in vocabulary growth over time.
This study examined the relationship between phonological awareness and reading ability among 105 primary school students in Solwezi, Zambia who use Kiikaonde as their language of instruction. The study found a positive relationship between students' phonological awareness and their reading ability. Specifically, higher levels of phonological awareness facilitated stronger reading development, and higher reading skills improved students' phonological awareness. Additionally, the study revealed that sound isolation, blending, and substitution were the components of phonological awareness being taught in schools through largely teacher-centered instructional strategies.
1. The study aimed to identify the effect of domestic violence on speech and pronunciation disorders in children in basic education in Ajloun governorate, Jordan.
2. The study found that parents used neglect and emotional violence against their children. Parents also punished children for using inappropriate words.
3. The study revealed significant differences in domestic violence between males and females, favoring males. Differences were also found based on birth order, favoring first born for emotional violence.
This document provides an overview of a student paper comparing language development in children to second language acquisition in adults. It discusses various theories of both language development and second language acquisition. The key conclusion is that while both are influenced by internal and external factors, the factors differ and are more supportive for language development in children. As adults, the external factors and need that support language development in children are not as strong, making second language acquisition more difficult.
#775632 Topic Don Quixote6.1 What Are Speech and Language Imp.docxmayank272369
#775632 Topic: Don Quixote
6.1 What Are Speech and Language Impairments?
Students receive services for SLI more than any other disability except for SLD. This section discusses the difference between a speech impairment and a language impairment. It presents the definition for SLI as outlined by IDEA and discusses the prevalence of SLI in schools in the United States.
Defining SLI
Speech and language impairment (SLI) refers to a group of disorders that affect a student's speech or language skill and development. Language refers to the systems that people use to communicate with each other; it also refers to the meanings of words, and how words are assembled into meaningful thoughts. It can be oral (spoken), written, or even gestural. For example, in the United States, the gestural language of a "high five" usually signals "Congratulations!" Speech, which refers to the oral aspect of language, is how people express ideas or thoughts through sounds. Speech is the main form of communication for people around the world.
A language impairment is a disorder that affects how people understand or use words. This can mean that they have difficulty understanding what people say (receptive language) or that they have difficulty constructing thoughts or ideas (expressive language), or both. Receptive language refers to how people organize and understand information provided through oral, written, or visual means. Expressive language refers to how people construct the words, symbols, or gestures they want to communicate to others. A speech impairment is a disorder that affects the production of sounds and words.
The category of SLI incorporates a wide variety of difficulties, including difficulties related to articulation (pronunciation), fluency (flow of speech), voice, and language (which includes putting words and sentences into meaningful forms). Students with SLI may experience difficulties with speech or language, with approximately half of diagnosed students experiencing both (Seeff-Gabriel, Chiat, & Pring, 2012).
In the field of medicine, SLI often falls under an umbrella category called communication disorders or communicative disorders (as do hearing difficulties; Chapter 10 discusses hearing impairments in detail, as they have their own IDEA 2004 category.) Evaluations or diagnoses from medical professionals may use the term communication disorder, but schools will use the term SLI.
Students with SLI may have academic skills that are below average, average, or above average, but researchers have demonstrated that they often perform below students without SLI on assessments of intelligence, language, and literacy (Ferguson, Hall, Riley, & Moore, 2011). The effects of an SLI on educational outcomes vary and are dependent upon the student's specific difficulties. For some students, the impairments do not hinder learning new material or participating in classroom activities. Other students with SLI, however, have difficulty with working memory ...
This document summarizes research on the effects of early bilingual education. It finds that bilingual children are not delayed in their language acquisition compared to monolingual children. Bilingual children reach language milestones at different times for each language depending on how much exposure they receive to that language. Studies also show bilingual children have cognitive advantages over monolingual children, including enhanced attention and monitoring skills. The role of parents is important to provide opportunities for bilingual language exposure through consistent use of each language and accessing language resources. Overall, the document concludes that bilingualism benefits children's linguistic and cognitive development when they receive continuous and regular exposure to both languages from an early age.
This document summarizes research on the effects of early bilingual education. It finds that bilingual children are not delayed in their language acquisition compared to monolingual children. Bilingual children reach language milestones at different times for each language depending on how much exposure they receive to that language. Studies also show bilingual children have cognitive advantages over monolingual children, including improved attention and monitoring skills. The role of parents is important to provide opportunities for bilingual language exposure through consistent use of each language and accessing language resources. Overall, the document concludes that bilingual education has benefits and bilingualism should not be viewed as causing language delays.
This document contains abstracts from 9 sources related to speech and language development and disorders in children. The abstracts cover topics such as language skills in bilingual children with cleft lip/palate, speech and language delays in children with neurofibromatosis type 1, the impact of child-directed speech, language delays in foster children, screening tools for detecting speech and language delays, outcomes for very preterm infants, early childhood vocabulary development, and issues related to diagnosing language disorders in bilingual children.
This document contains 14 abstracts from research studies and review articles on topics related to speech and language development, delays, and disorders in children. The abstracts cover a range of topics including studies comparing language skills in children with cleft lip/palate to typically developing children; assessing speech and language in children with neurofibromatosis type 1; the impact of child-directed speech; language delays in foster children; screening tools for detecting speech and language delay; and factors influencing language outcomes in preterm infants.
This document discusses the importance of phonemic awareness, phonology, and fluency for reading instruction. It notes that children with spoken language delays are at risk for literacy problems, and early language factors can predict reading outcomes. Specific variables like sentence imitation, letter identification, and phonological awareness can identify 88% of children at risk of reading problems. The document also discusses phonological processing skills, phonological awareness, and the role of speech language pathologists in assessing and providing intervention in these areas to support reading.
A lack of reading limits one’s quality of life (Bradford, Shippen, Alberto, Houschins, & Flores, 2006) and yet only 1 in 5 students with intellectual disabilities reaches minimal literacy levels (Katims, 2001). Slow development of reading skills may affect more than just one academic subject but may also delay language acquisition, general knowledge, vocabulary, and even social acceptance.
However, “Literacy and reading instruction for students with significant intellectual disabilities is in its infancy….there is a dearth of information regarding complete instructional programs that might help these children learn to read and write” (Erickson et al., 2009, p. 132).
6.1 What Are Speech and Language ImpairmentsStudents receive se.docxalinainglis
6.1 What Are Speech and Language Impairments?
Students receive services for SLI more than any other disability except for SLD. This section discusses the difference between a speech impairment and a language impairment. It presents the definition for SLI as outlined by IDEA and discusses the prevalence of SLI in schools in the United States.
Defining SLI
Speech and language impairment (SLI) refers to a group of disorders that affect a student's speech or language skill and development. Language refers to the systems that people use to communicate with each other; it also refers to the meanings of words, and how words are assembled into meaningful thoughts. It can be oral (spoken), written, or even gestural. For example, in the United States, the gestural language of a "high five" usually signals "Congratulations!" Speech, which refers to the oral aspect of language, is how people express ideas or thoughts through sounds. Speech is the main form of communication for people around the world.
A language impairment is a disorder that affects how people understand or use words. This can mean that they have difficulty understanding what people say (receptive language) or that they have difficulty constructing thoughts or ideas (expressive language), or both. Receptive language refers to how people organize and understand information provided through oral, written, or visual means. Expressive language refers to how people construct the words, symbols, or gestures they want to communicate to others. A speech impairment is a disorder that affects the production of sounds and words.
The category of SLI incorporates a wide variety of difficulties, including difficulties related to articulation (pronunciation), fluency (flow of speech), voice, and language (which includes putting words and sentences into meaningful forms). Students with SLI may experience difficulties with speech or language, with approximately half of diagnosed students experiencing both (Seeff-Gabriel, Chiat, & Pring, 2012).
In the field of medicine, SLI often falls under an umbrella category called communication disorders or communicative disorders (as do hearing difficulties; Chapter 10 discusses hearing impairments in detail, as they have their own IDEA 2004 category.) Evaluations or diagnoses from medical professionals may use the term communication disorder, but schools will use the term SLI.
Students with SLI may have academic skills that are below average, average, or above average, but researchers have demonstrated that they often perform below students without SLI on assessments of intelligence, language, and literacy (Ferguson, Hall, Riley, & Moore, 2011). The effects of an SLI on educational outcomes vary and are dependent upon the student's specific difficulties. For some students, the impairments do not hinder learning new material or participating in classroom activities. Other students with SLI, however, have difficulty with working memory, which influences how they .
Role of Speech Therapy in Overcoming Lexical Deficit in Adult Broca’s Aphasia
Tanzeela Abid & Dr. Habibullah Pathan,
English Language Development Centre, Faculty of Science, Technology and Humanities, Mehran University of Engineering and Technology, Pakistan
This is an exploratory study and qualitative in nature. Unit of exploration is ‘Adult Broca’s Aphasic Patients.’ This paper aims to explore the function and integrity of ‘Speech Therapy’ for adult Broca’s aphasia. Aphasia is the after-effect of brain damage, commonly found in left hemisphere which disrupts language faculty. The present study focuses on ‘Lexical’ aspect of language in which an individual faces trouble in processing of words. In Broca’s aphasia affected individual suffers from diminished capability of speaking/communication. To recover such diminished capabilities, speech therapy is utilized. This study intends to investigate the effectiveness of speech therapy that how speech therapy helps to adult Broca’s aphasia to recover their speaking or conversing skills? Participants of the study are ‘Speech therapists.’ Purposeful sampling, particularly Snowball sampling has been undertaken. Semi-structured interviews have been conducted from five speech therapists, which have been analyzed through thematic analysis under the light of ‘Sketch Model’ given by De ruiter and De beer (2013). The Findings of the study suggest that speech therapy may be proved helpful for Broca’s aphasia to recover their communicating capabilities but it requires much time (minimum 6 months). Moreover, recovery depends upon certain factors such as age, level of disorder and willingness.
Keywords: Broca’s Aphasia, Lexical Deficit, Speech Therapy, Communication, Speaking Skills
The Sixth International Conference on Languages, Linguistics, Translation and Literature
9-10 October 2021 , Ahwaz
For more information, please visit the conference website:
WWW.LLLD.IR
This lesson plan aims to develop empathy in students for their hearing-impaired peers. It involves having students listen to an audiotape called the "Unfair Hearing Test", which simulates different types and degrees of hearing loss. After listening, students write about how they felt when they could not hear well, how hearing loss could impact classroom participation, and how those with hearing loss may compensate. The goal is for students to gain appreciation for the challenges of hearing loss and how to work more effectively with hearing-impaired classmates.
Analysis of maternal morphemes input provided to children using cochlear impl...HEARnet _
The child directed speech of 20 English-speaking mothers was analysed for Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) and the frequency distribution of morphemes during play based interactions with their children who use cochlear implants
Auditory processing disorder (APD) affects the brain's temporal regions and causes difficulties interpreting auditory information. It is associated with language disorders like dyslexia and learning disabilities. Traditional learning methods are ineffective for students with APD. Alternative methods like peer tutoring, video instruction, and early intervention that use language-based approaches can help these students learn. Further research on APD is still needed to better understand the condition and help professionals who work with students experiencing it.
The document discusses first, second, and additional language acquisition. It explains that a first language is the primary language acquired from birth, whereas second language acquisition involves learning additional languages after the first. Key aspects of first language acquisition include its rapid nature during early childhood and the various theories about its mechanisms. Second and additional language learning can be impacted by factors like age of acquisition, motivation, instructional environment, and influence from previously learned languages.
General Factors contributing in Sla presentationDilshad Shah
This document discusses the effects of age on second language acquisition across multiple pages. It covers several key points:
1) Age is one of the most important individual differences that can impact second language learning success. Younger learners often attain higher proficiency, especially in aspects like pronunciation, as supported by the Critical Period Hypothesis.
2) Studies have found mixed results on how age impacts various aspects of second language acquisition, such as processes, rate of learning, and achievement levels. Younger learners generally perform better in naturalistic settings while older learners do better in formal classroom settings.
3) The strongest evidence suggests that learners who begin acquiring a second language at a young age ultimately achieve higher
How to Make a Field Mandatory in Odoo 17Celine George
In Odoo, making a field required can be done through both Python code and XML views. When you set the required attribute to True in Python code, it makes the field required across all views where it's used. Conversely, when you set the required attribute in XML views, it makes the field required only in the context of that particular view.
A workshop hosted by the South African Journal of Science aimed at postgraduate students and early career researchers with little or no experience in writing and publishing journal articles.
The simplified electron and muon model, Oscillating Spacetime: The Foundation...RitikBhardwaj56
Discover the Simplified Electron and Muon Model: A New Wave-Based Approach to Understanding Particles delves into a groundbreaking theory that presents electrons and muons as rotating soliton waves within oscillating spacetime. Geared towards students, researchers, and science buffs, this book breaks down complex ideas into simple explanations. It covers topics such as electron waves, temporal dynamics, and the implications of this model on particle physics. With clear illustrations and easy-to-follow explanations, readers will gain a new outlook on the universe's fundamental nature.
How to Manage Your Lost Opportunities in Odoo 17 CRMCeline George
Odoo 17 CRM allows us to track why we lose sales opportunities with "Lost Reasons." This helps analyze our sales process and identify areas for improvement. Here's how to configure lost reasons in Odoo 17 CRM
This presentation was provided by Steph Pollock of The American Psychological Association’s Journals Program, and Damita Snow, of The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), for the initial session of NISO's 2024 Training Series "DEIA in the Scholarly Landscape." Session One: 'Setting Expectations: a DEIA Primer,' was held June 6, 2024.
This presentation includes basic of PCOS their pathology and treatment and also Ayurveda correlation of PCOS and Ayurvedic line of treatment mentioned in classics.
How to Build a Module in Odoo 17 Using the Scaffold MethodCeline George
Odoo provides an option for creating a module by using a single line command. By using this command the user can make a whole structure of a module. It is very easy for a beginner to make a module. There is no need to make each file manually. This slide will show how to create a module using the scaffold method.
Liberal Approach to the Study of Indian Politics.pdf
b
1. Language and phonological skills in children
at high risk of reading di⁄culties
Julia M. Carroll and Margaret J. Snowling
University of York, UK
Background: Dyslexia is now generally acknowledged to involve difficulties in phonological processing.
However, the links between reading difficulties and speech difficulties remain unclear. Method: In the
present study, 17 children with speech difficulties between the ages of four and six were compared to
children with a family history of dyslexia and normally developing controls on phonological processing,
phonological learning, phonological awareness and literacy tasks. Results: The two groups of children
at risk of reading difficulties showed very similar patterns of impairment, with average vocabulary but
poor input and output speech processing, phonological learning, phonological awareness and reading
development. Conclusions: It is concluded that the antecedents of reading difficulty are similar in
these two groups of children, with both groups showing deficits in the development of phonological
representations. Keywords: Diagnosis, dyslexia, high risk studies, learning, phonological processing.
It is widely accepted that learning to read depends on
phonological skills and the corollary of this is that
children who have phonological difficulties are at
risk of reading problems. The group of children
whose phonological deficits have attracted most re-
search attention are those with dyslexia; these chil-
dren’s deficits encompass problems of phonological
awareness, verbal short-term memory and rapid
automatised naming (Snowling, 2000a). Another
group of children who are vulnerable to reading dif-
ficulties are children with problems of expressive
phonology. These children have phonological
impairments that can be observed in speech output
processes (Dodd, 1995; Stackhouse & Snowling,
1992). The extent to which their reading problems
can be traced to deficits in phonological skills, rather
than to broader language impairments that fre-
quently accompany these, is not yet fully under-
stood.
Bishop and Adams (1990) followed the progress of
a group of children who had had pre-school speech
and language impairments at the age of 8 years. The
literacy skills of those who had had isolated phono-
logical impairments affecting expressive phonology
were significantly better than those of children with
language difficulties. Similar results were reported
by Catts (1991) who found that children assessed in
kindergarten as having speech impairments in the
absence of language problems showed comparable
reading levels to controls one year later in first grade.
In contrast, children with speech and additional
language impairments showed significantly worse
performance. Similar findings were reported by Levi,
Capozzi, Fabrizi, and Sechi (1982) and Nathan,
Stackhouse, Goulandris, and Snowling (in press).
Both of these studies compared the reading skills of
speech-impaired children with and without addi-
tional language problems. While both groups were
delayed in literacy development, the children with
additional language difficulties were more signific-
antly impaired. These studies therefore suggest it is
language, rather than speech, difficulties that are
the main precursors of reading problems. However,
it should be noted that the children classified as
Ôspeech and language impairedÕ in these studies were
more severely impaired in their speech as well as
their language than the speech-only impaired group.
It is therefore difficult to disentangle the effects of
poor speech from those of poor language.
Bird, Bishop, and Freeman (1995) conducted a
study of speech-impaired children that avoided this
methodological difficulty by comparing subgroups of
children with and without language impairment that
had equivalent levels of speech difficulty at the
beginning of the study when they were aged five to
six years old. When these children were followed up
one and two years later, they showed deficits relative
to controls matched for non-verbal IQ in reading,
spelling and phonological awareness. These deficits
were irrespective of whether children had additional
language difficulties.
The close similarity between the reading and
phonological awareness difficulties observed among
children with dyslexia and those with speech diffi-
culties is such that it has been suggested that the
two disorders lie on a continuum (Stackhouse &
Wells, 1997; Snowling, 2000b) that has phonological
processing difficulties at its core (cf. Stanovich &
Siegal, 1994). In similar vein, Bishop and Adams
(1990) proposed the Ôcritical age hypothesisÕ, which
states that the extent to which a child is vulnerable
to reading failure depends upon the status of their
phonological processing skills at the stage when
these are required for learning to read.
A second issue that is not yet resolved regarding
the risk of reading difficulties among children with
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry 45:3 (2004), pp 631–640
Ó Association for Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 2004.
Published by Blackwell Publishing, 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA
2. speech impairments relates to the nature of their
phonological impairments. An integrating theory is
that reading difficulties can be traced to poorly spe-
cified phonological representations (Fowler, 1991;
Metsala, 1997; Ramus, 2001; Swan & Goswami,
1997; Snowling & Hulme, 1994; Snowling, Bishop, &
Stothard, 2000). However, this hypothesis leaves
open the question of the extent of involvement of
speech input (perception) and speech output (pro-
duction) processes. Studies that have examined
speech perception and spoken word identification in
dyslexic readers have produced equivocal findings
(Brady, 1997; Griffiths & Snowling, 2001; McBride-
Chang, 1996; Metsala, 1997; Pennington & Lefly,
2001).
Joanisse, Manis, Keating, and Seidenberg (2000)
have suggested that variability in speech perception
in dyslexia is associated with individual differences
in oral language skill. Thus, perceptual problems
appear to be more common among children with
dyslexia who have concomitant language impair-
ments.
Studies that have examined the speech production
abilities of children with dyslexia are comparatively
rare (cf. Snowling, Hulme, Wells, & Goulandris,
1992). However, evidence from prospective studies of
dyslexia among children from families at genetic risk
of the disorder suggests that such difficulties are
apparent during the pre-school years (Scarborough,
1990). Furthermore, school-age children with dys-
lexia have difficulties on nonword repetition tasks
that tap output phonological processes (Snowling,
1981; Snowling, Goulandris, Bowlby, & Howell,
1986). Indeed, Kamhi and Catts (1986) reported that
performance on a test requiring the repetition of
multisyllabic nonwords was as poor for reading-
impaired children as for children with primary oral
language impairments. Adding to the evidence
implicating speech production deficits in reading
failure, Leitao, Hogben, and Fletcher (1997) showed
that speech-impaired children who showed a pattern
of ÔdeviantÕ speech errors were poorer on tests of
phonological awareness than speech-impaired chil-
dren whose phonological errors could be described
as delayed, i.e., like those of younger children.
In short, there is reason to believe that there are
continuities between oral and written language dif-
ficulties. However, the hypothesis that developmen-
tal speech difficulties presage dyslexia is simplistic.
It seems that the risk of dyslexia is increased among
children with speech problems but the risk is mod-
erated both by the age at which the speech problems
resolve and the nature (and severity) of the speech
difficulty. Following on from this, Stackhouse and
colleagues (Stackhouse, 2000; Nathan et al., in
press) argued that children with speech problems
are at risk of literacy problems if they have meta-
phonological difficulties, particularly deficits in
phoneme awareness. The present study explored the
relationship between dyslexia and speech difficulties
by assessing the emergent reading-related skills of
children with speech difficulties who were receiving
speech and language therapy at the time of the study
and comparing them with those of children at family
risk of reading difficulties by virtue of having an older
sibling or parent who was dyslexic.
There are now a significant number of studies that
have shown the risk of dyslexia is heightened among
first degree relatives of people with dyslexia, with
between 32% and 65% of the offspring of dyslexic
parents going on to have reading problems (Elbro,
Borstrom, & Peterson, 1998; Pennington & Lefly,
2001; Scarborough, 1990). Taken together, the
findings of these family studies present a fairly
unitary picture; the vocabulary skills of children at
high risk of dyslexia are poorer than those of controls
during the pre-school years (Gallagher, Frith, &
Snowling, 2000) and their phonological awareness
and letter knowledge are poorly developed at the
ages of 4 and 5 years (Gallagher et al., 2000; Penn-
ington & Lefly, 2001; Scarborough, 1990). Moreover,
there is some evidence that children at family risk of
dyslexia show inaccurate articulation of known
words (Scarborough, 1990; Elbro et al., 1998).
In order to provide a comprehensive assessment of
the phonological skills of the two experimental
groups, we used tests of phonological learning and
phonological awareness as well as assessing basic
phonological processes. Given that we selected one
group to have speech problems, we predicted that
their performance would be less good than that of the
children at family risk of dyslexia on a test of output
phonological skills, namely nonword repetition.
However, in line with previous findings (e.g., Kamhi
& Catts, 1986; Gallagher et al., 2000), we expected
both groups to perform less well than typically
developing children. We included one test of input
phonological processing, namely a task in which
children had to decide whether a word that they
heard was correctly pronounced or not. This task
has not, to our knowledge, been used with children
with reading disabilities; however, spoken word
identification skills have tended to be associated
with vocabulary development (Walley, 1993; Metsala
& Walley, 1998) and to this extent we predicted that
differences between the high-risk participants and
controls would turn on their verbal abilities.
To assess phonological awareness, we included
tests tapping matching phonological segments at the
level of syllables, rimes and phonemes. We expected
that both high-risk groups would show phonological
awareness deficits relative to controls but, in line
with the developmental progression of phonological
skills, we predicted that these would be more
marked for small units (phonemes) than for the lar-
ger units of syllables and rimes.
We also wished to investigate the ability of the
children to learn new words. One of the strongest
early predictors of reading ability is letter-knowledge
(e.g., Adams, 1990; Muter, Hulme, Snowling, &
632 Julia M. Carroll and Margaret J. Snowling
3. Taylor, 1998) and children at high risk of dyslexia
show poor letter knowledge at school entry (Scar-
borough, 1990). To learn a letter’s name or sound
requires the association of a visual symbol with a
novel phonological form. It is conceivable, therefore,
that differences in phonological learning between
children with dyslexia and normally developing
children could account for differences in their con-
solidated knowledge of letters. This hypothesis is
particularly appealing in view of the reported diffi-
culties that dyslexic children have in visual–verbal
paired associate learning (Vellutino, Scanlon, &
Spearing, 1995; Vellutino, Steger, Harding, & Phil-
lips, 1975). A quite separate body of research shows
that children with specific language impairments are
slower than children with normal language devel-
opment to acquire the meanings of new words in
tasks of Quick Incidental Learning Tasks (QUIL;
Oetting, Rice, & Swank, 1995; Rice, Oetting, Mar-
quis, & Bode, 1994). Although the children studied
by these investigators have typically had receptive
language impairments, it is at least conceivable that
phonological problems contribute to the problem
they have in storing new word forms. We therefore
predicted that both groups of high-risk children
would acquire fewer novel phonological forms
(words) in an incidental learning task than controls
at low risk of reading difficulties.
In summary, we tested the differences between
children with family risk of dyslexia and children
with speech difficulties in four different domains;
literacy, phonological awareness, phonological pro-
cessing and phonological learning. It is hypothesised
that the children selected for speech difficulties will
show weak phonological processing and phonolo-
gical awareness, as found by Bird et al. (1995). It is
also hypothesised that the children with a family risk
of dyslexia will show weak emergent literacy and
phonological awareness, as described by Gallagher
et al. (2002). In line with the phonological represen-
tations hypothesis, it is further predicted that both
groups of high-risk children will show weak phono-
logical learning (Snowling, Gallagher, & Frith, 2003).
Method
Participants
Fifty-one children aged between 3;11 years and 6;06
years took part in the study. The children comprised
three groups of matched triplets; the family-risk group
comprised 17 children (6 girls and 11 boys) who had a
parent or sibling with diagnosed dyslexia. Each of
these children was matched to a child from the
speech-impaired group and a child from the control
group on the basis of age and, as far as possible,
educational experience. The speech-impaired group
comprised 17 children (6 girls and 11 boys) who were
currently undergoing speech therapy. They were
selected by their speech therapists as having signific-
antly delayed speech, but average language develop-
ment. None of the children in this group had a family
history of dyslexia. The control group comprised 17
children (9 girls and 8 boys) who were free of speech
difficulties and reported no family history of reading
problems. Ten of the children in each group were from
state schools or nurseries. Seven of the family-risk
and control children were from independent schools,
and they were matched to four speech-impaired chil-
dren in independent education and three speech-
impaired children who were in state education but
having speech therapy from a private speech therap-
ist. Two of the children in the family-risk group were
receiving regular speech therapy. Children from the
family-risk and speech-impaired groups were tested
either in their homes or in clinics, usually in one or
two sessions. The children who acted as controls were
tested in their schools. The three groups had equi-
valent ages and vocabulary scores, which are shown,
together with the descriptive statistics for the other
variables, in Table 1.
Tests and materials
Language skills. Receptive vocabulary: Vocabulary
knowledge was measured using the British Picture
Vocabulary Scale (long version; Dunn, Dunn, Whetton,
& Pintilie, 1982). In this test, the child hears a word and
is asked to point out which picture the word depicts
from a set of four alternatives. The test continues until
the child makes six errors in eight items.
Table 1 Performance of family-risk, speech-impaired and control groups on the background measures and experimental tasks
Control Family risk Speech impaired
Age1
62.53 (9.68) 62.71 (9.86) 62.76 (10.07)
Vocabulary2
102.06 (8.53) 104.35 (11.20) 102.59 (13.00)
Expressive phonology3
91.89 (5.55) 81.23 (17.38) 62.29 (21.65)
Nonword repetition4
17.76 (2.63) 12.47 (4.95) 6.18 (4.49)
Mispronunciation detection 5
20.12 (2.67) 17.71 (3.90) 17.18 (4.14)
Phonological learning Recognition6
4.94 (1.24) 3.69 (1.85) 3.87 (1.36)
Phonological learning Recall6
1.43 (1.16) .50 (.65) .79 (.97)
Syllable matching7
13.12 (2.74) 12.41 (2.74) 11.24 (2.88)
Rime matching7
14.06 (2.44) 11.76 (3.65) 12.18 (3.86)
Phoneme matching7
13.12 (3.44) 11.88 (3.18) 10.13 (3.93)
Letter-sound knowledge8
18.88 (8.26) 18.71 (7.99) 14.41 (9.38)
Word recognition9
21.18 (17.10) 15.35 (13.94) 12.88 (13.93)
Notes: 1
months; 2
standard score; 3
% consonants correct; 4
Max ¼ 24; 5
Max ¼ 23; 6
Max ¼ 6; 7
Max ¼ 16; 8
Max. ¼ 26; 9
Max. ¼ 42.
Children at risk of reading difficulties 633
4. Phonological processing. Mispronunciation detection
(input phonology): In this task, the children were intro-
duced to a puppet that looked like Cookie Monster, from
Sesame Street. They were told that he was a baby
monster, who was just learning to talk. Sometimes he
said words right, but sometimes he said words wrong.
They were asked to listen carefully to what he said and
to tell him if he had said each word right or wrong.
Three practice items were given, with full feedback, and
a brief discussion of what the monster said, and what
he was trying to say, to make sure that the child
understood the task. The child then heard 23 words.
The words varied as to whether they were one-syllable
words or three-syllable words, and whether they had a
high or low age of acquisition. Eight of the 23 words
were correctly pronounced, and 15 were mispro-
nounced by substituting a single consonant phoneme.
Seven of these had their initial consonant mispro-
nounced (e.g., nuck for duck), and eight had a later
consonant mispronounced, either a medial consonant
(e.g., golilla for gorilla) in the case of the three-syllable
words or a final consonant (e.g., moush for mouse) in
the case of the one-syllable words.
Expressive phonology: In order to provide a measure
of the quality of each child’s articulation, his or her
responses to items on a confrontation naming task were
transcribed and a score representing the percentage of
consonants correct was derived (Shriberg & Kwiat-
kowski, 1982). The naming task comprised 21 pictures
of objects, the names of which had two and three syl-
lables with an observed age of acquisition of less than
four years. Seven of the words had an unstressed initial
syllable (e.g., gorilla), seven of them contained con-
sonant clusters (e.g., screwdriver) and seven of them
contained vowels as a full syllable (e.g., caterpillar).
Eleven of the words were also used in the mis-
pronunciation detection task. If a child failed to name
an item correctly they were given a semantic clue. If
they were still unable to name the picture, they were
told the correct name and re-tested on that item at the
end of the test. If the child still failed to produce that
item then it was assumed that the child did not know
that word and it was removed in the calculation of that
child’s total score.
Nonword repetition (output phonology): The children
were also given a nonword repetition task. Nonword
repetition is a task that in the school years consistently
distinguishes normally developing children from chil-
dren with language difficulties (Bishop, North, & Don-
lan, 1996). The test consisted of 12 two- and three-
syllable nonwords. Eight of these words had primary
stress on the initial syllable, e.g., flitherty, 4 of them had
primary stress on the second syllable, e.g., bemure. Two
points were given for every nonword correctly repeated,
and one point for each nonword pronounced with a
single phoneme error (an inserted, deleted or substi-
tuted phoneme).
Phonological learning. To assess phonological learn-
ing skills, the child was presented with 6 new words to
learn, embedded in the narrative of a storybook, The
Gruffalo (Donaldson & Scheffler, 1999). This story de-
scribes a monster called a Gruffalo, and then follows a
mouse as he searches for the Gruffalo in the forest. Six
words were selected from the description of the Gruffalo
to be the target words. Four of these were changed from
the words in the published story into words not likely to
be known by young children. Real words were used for
ethical reasons, and pre-testing showed that the words
were not generally known to the children. The words
consisted of three nouns and three adjectives; wart,
talons, tusk, lilac, amber, gnarly. ÔTuskÕ and ÔwartÕ were
words present in the original story, but ÔtalonsÕ, ÔlilacÕ,
ÔamberÕ and ÔgnarlyÕ replaced ÔclawsÕ, ÔpurpleÕ, ÔorangeÕ
and ÔknobblyÕ, respectively.
At the beginning of the experiment, the children were
shown a picture of the Gruffalo from the book and were
asked to point to his ears and to his tail as practice
items to make sure that they understood the task. Then
they were asked if they could point to each of the target
parts of the picture in turn. For instance, they were
asked ÔCan you see his talons? Where do you think his
talons are?Õ The children were given corrective feed-
back. Scores on this part of the test formed the pre-test
score. The story was then read to the child with him or
her looking at the pictures. To ensure that the children
were concentrating on the story, they were given two
informal comprehension questions during the course of
the book reading, such as ÔWhat animal is this?Õ and
ÔWhy is the fox running away?Õ Most children found
these questions easy.
Each of the target words was included twice in the
story, each time accompanying an illustration of that
word. Immediately after the first reading of the story,
the child was asked to point to the target areas on the
picture of the Gruffalo in the same way as they had in
pre-testing. Again, corrective feedback was given. After
spending at least 30 minutes on other tasks, the chil-
dren were shown a picture of the Gruffalo and were
asked to recall each of the target words. For instance,
the experimenter would point to the Gruffalo’s tusks
and ask ÔCan you remember what these were called?Õ
Again, they were given corrective feedback. Their per-
formance on this task was recorded as the Ôrecall scoreÕ.
Finally, they were read the story again, and given an-
other recognition test using the picture of the Gruffalo.
Responses were recorded to give the Ôrecognition scoreÕ.
Phonological awareness. Phonological awareness
was assessed by means of three different tests, invol-
ving syllable, rime and initial phoneme matching. All of
the tasks used followed the two alternative forced-
choice format used by Locke (1997). The child was
introduced to a puppet who liked to collect words with a
particular phonological relationship with the one it al-
ready had. For instance, Gerry Giraffe liked to collect
words with the same first syllable. For each trial, Gerry
held a picture card, and the children were asked, for
instance, ÔGerry has a picture of butter. Which of these
words, sandwich or button, has the same sound at the
beginning as butter ?Õ If the child said they didn’t know,
they were encouraged to Ôthink carefully and then
chooseÕ. When they had chosen, the cards were turned
over to see if they were correct – the correct alternative
had a coloured sticker on the back that was the same
colour as the cue card. The distracter card had a dif-
ferently coloured sticker. If they had picked correctly,
the experimenter said, for instance, ÔYes, that’s right,
butter and button have the same sound, ÔbutÕ, at the
beginning. Sandwich is the odd one out.Õ If they had
634 Julia M. Carroll and Margaret J. Snowling
5. chosen the wrong alternative, they were told ÔNo, button
and butter have the same sound, ÔbutÕ, at the beginning.
Sandwich is the odd one out.Õ In this way, the children
were given immediate feedback after every trial, as
previous researchers (e.g., Content, Kolinsky, Morais, &
Bertelson, 1986) had found that feedback on phonolo-
gical awareness tasks facilitates understanding of the
task requirements.
The tasks were presented in sets of eight with feed-
back following each trial. Most of the words used were
taken from an age of acquisition database (Morrison,
Chappell, & Ellis, 1997) as being words of high freq-
uency that were in children’s expressive vocabulary at
younger than three and a half years of age. The pictures
used were in the main taken from the Snodgrass and
Vanderwart (1980) picture set. A few words were not
from this database, however, and pictures of these words
were drawn freehand as black and white line drawings.
Syllable matching: The word used for the syllable
matching task all had two syllables. In 8 trials, the two
words matched according to the initial syllable (e.g.,
button – butter) and in 8 trials the matching was on the
basis of the final syllable (e.g., jigsaw – see-saw). Half of
the initial and half of the final matching trials had dis-
tracter items that were semantically related to the cue
word (e.g., puppy – puppet – rabbit).
Rime matching: There were 16 trials in the rime
matching task; 8 of these had distracter items that were
semantically related to the cue item (e.g., cat – dog –
hat), 4 had distracter items that were globally phono-
logical similar to the cue item (e.g., pin – tin – pen), 4
trials had distracter items that were unrelated to the
cue word.
Phoneme matching: In the phoneme matching task
the child was required to match items that started with
the same initial phoneme (e.g., pen – pig). The task
contained 16 trials. On four trials the distracter item
was semantically related to the cue word (e.g., sheep –
pig – shoe), and on four trials it was phonologically
related to the cue word (e.g., dish – beach – duck). On
four trials the distracter item was both semantically
and phonologically related to the cue word (e.g., moon –
sun – mouse), and on four trials it was unrelated to the
cue word.
Emergent literacy. Letter knowledge: Children were
shown each of the 26 lower-case letters of the alphabet
individually and asked if they knew what that letter
was. If they gave the letter name, they were asked if they
knew the letter sound. Letter-sound knowledge was
used in the analyses.
Reading: To assess early word recognition skills, a
test consisting of 42 of the earliest words children learn
was given (Hatcher, 2000). Children were shown the
words in sets of six and encouraged to read them. The
test was discontinued if the child did not know any of
the words from the first three sets.
Results
Mean scores for each group on individual tests are
presented in Table 1. To avoid the difficulties asso-
ciated with multiple comparisons on a large set of
tests, scores on each of the tasks were standardised,
and composite scores were created for each area of
interest. Group differences were assessed using
within-subjects analyses of variance, followed up by
planned comparisons between the groups in the
form of difference contrasts. Where appropriate,
differences between the control group and the two
high-risk groups on individual test scores are pre-
sented, and differences between the two high-risk
groups are discussed in terms of effect size.
Phonological processing
There was a significant effect of group on the
phonological processing composite score (F(2,32) ¼
25.01, p < .001), which included the measures of
expressive phonology (picture naming), nonword
repetition and mispronunciation detection. Differ-
ence contrasts showed that the three groups differed
significantly from each other (control vs. family:
F ¼ 18.857, p < .001, family vs. speech: F ¼ 27.907,
p < .001), with the family-risk children scoring in
between the controls and the speech-impaired chil-
dren. As anticipated, both high-risk groups showed
difficulties in basic phonological processes, and this
was more pronounced for the speech-impaired chil-
dren. Differences between the two high-risk groups
were large for measures of output phonology (ex-
pressive naming d ¼ .97; nonword repetition,
d ¼ 1.33), reflecting the selection procedure. In
contrast, the subgroup difference on the input
measure of mispronunciation detection was small
(d ¼ .13).
Figure 1 shows the distributions of the scores of
the children in the three groups on the expressive
phonology (picture-naming) task in terms of per-
centage consonants correct. All of the children in the
control group scored at least 80% consonants cor-
rect. The children with speech difficulties showed a
much wider range, from 25% to 96% consonants
correct. Six of the 17 children in the family-risk and
13/17 of those in the speech-impaired groups scored
below the lowest-scoring control child. Given the fact
Control Family-risk Speech-imp.
Figure 1 Individual scores on the expressive phonology
task by group
Children at risk of reading difficulties 635
6. that the subjects were individually matched, it was
not appropriate to use standard 2 · 2 Chi-square
analyses, and the data was analysed as 17 pairs in
which the control and the at-risk child were either
concordant or discordant for the presence of speech
difficulties. Both the analyses, for the family-risk
and for the speech-impaired groups, were signific-
ant, indicating that speech production difficulties
were more common in the family-risk group (v2
¼ 6,
df ¼ 1, p < .05) as well as in the speech-impaired
group (v2
¼ 13, df ¼ 1, p < .01).
Phonological learning
There was a significant effect of group on the
Phonological Learning composite (F(2,26) ¼ 6.020,
p < .01), which included the recognition and recall
measures from the Gruffalo task. In this case, the
control children outperformed both the family-risk
and the speech-impaired groups (F(1,13) ¼ 7.631,
p < .05, and F(1,13) ¼ 19.32, p < .001, respectively),
who did not differ from one another (F(1,13) ¼ 2.408,
p ¼ ns).
Phonological awareness
A composite phonological awareness score was cre-
ated by summing the standardised scores on the
syllable, rime and initial phoneme matching tasks. A
main effect of group was again found on this variable
(F(2,28) ¼ 4.404, p < .05). Difference contrasts
showed that the control children outperformed the
family-risk children (F(1,14) ¼ 9.00, p < .01) and the
family-risk and speech-impaired children did not
differ (F(1,14) ¼ 3.475, p ¼ ns). Examination of the
distribution of scores on the phonological awareness
tasks suggests that there are larger differences be-
tween the control group and the high-risk groups on
the rime and initial phoneme matching tasks than
on the syllable matching task. Given the non-normal
distribution on individual phonological awareness
tests, non-parametric tests were used, which con-
firmed the hypothesis: there was no significant dif-
ference between the groups on the Syllable task
(v2
¼ 4.667, df ¼ 2, p ¼ ns), but there were signific-
ant differences on the Rime (v2
¼ 8.373, df ¼ 2,
p < .05) and Initial Phoneme matching tasks
(v2
¼ 8.517, df ¼ 2, p < .05). Effect sizes are not
presented, again because of the non-normal dis-
tribution of the individual test scores.
Literacy measures
A composite literacy variable was created by sum-
ming the standardised scores of the letter-knowledge
and early word recognition tasks. A main effect of
group was again found (F(2,32) ¼ 4.189, p < .05).
Difference contrasts showed that, contrary to pre-
diction, the family-risk group did not differ sig-
nificantly from controls (F(1,16) ¼ 1.94, p ¼ ns), but
was performing significantly better than the children
with speech difficulties (F(1,16) ¼ 5.18, p < .05).
However, examination of the mean scores on the
reading and letter-knowledge tasks separately pre-
sents a somewhat different picture. It is important to
interpret sub-group differences cautiously given the
high degree of variability, especially in word re-
cognition. Nonetheless, further analyses suggest
that the family-risk and speech-impaired groups
both show lower levels of reading accuracy than
controls (F(1,32) ¼ 4.436, p < .05) and do not differ
from each other (d ¼ .18). For letter knowledge, there
is a trend suggesting an overall group difference
(F(1,32) ¼ 3.297, p ¼ .05), with the speech-impaired
children having significantly poorer knowledge of
letters than the family-risk group (d ¼ .49).
Discussion
This study explored the similarities in cognitive
profile between children with a family history of
dyslexia and children with speech problems, in an
attempt to assess their relative risk of reading
problems. On the basis of previous research, we as-
sumed that children in both groups could be con-
sidered at high risk of reading difficulties, and
predicted that they would show similar weaknesses
in phonological skills. In line with this prediction, the
performance of the two groups on tests of phonolo-
gical processing and phonological learning was im-
paired relative to that of controls at low risk of
reading failure of similar age and educational
experience. The two high-risk groups were also
found to have more poorly developed phonological
awareness and word recognition skills than controls,
and the speech-impaired group had rather less well-
developed letter knowledge.
The fact that the three groups of children had
similar receptive vocabulary rules out the possibility
that the phonological difficulties of the two high-risk
groups were a consequence of generally poor lan-
guage development. Moreover, the two high-risk
groups did not differ in their performance on the
perceptual task involving the detection of mispro-
nunciations in words. Given our recruitment proce-
dure, it was not surprising that the children with
speech impairments scored more poorly than con-
trols on the two tests of output phonology. However,
although nonword repetition deficits in the family-
risk group were predicted, the degree of impairment
in expressive phonology (naming) was unanticip-
ated. The difficulties observed in expressive phono-
logy and nonword repetition confirmed that output
phonological deficits are implicated in the family risk
of dyslexia, though these are less severe than those
observed among children with speech impairments.
Importantly, the two high-risk groups were impaired
to a similar degree on a dynamic task requiring
phonological learning, in spite of the fact that they
636 Julia M. Carroll and Margaret J. Snowling
7. were matched with controls in consolidated voca-
bulary knowledge on the picture vocabulary test.
Although our data do not allow us to draw inferences
about causation, these findings suggest that the two
high-risk groups have difficulties with the encoding,
storage or retrieval processes involved in new word
learning. Put another way, they have difficulty in
establishing the phonological representations that
underlie the accurate retrieval of new phonological
forms. We propose such a difficulty implies that,
irrespective of whether or not the meaning of a new
word can be acquired easily, it will be difficult for
these children to retrieve its name. More generally,
such a difficulty could explain these children’s
difficulty in verbal short-term memory, confronta-
tion and rapid naming tasks (Wagner & Torgesen,
1987).
As predicted, the difficulties of the high-risk
groups were not limited to implicit phonological
processes such as nonword repetition. In line with
the developmental progression of explicit phonolo-
gical awareness, the high-risk groups did not differ
from controls in syllable matching but they showed
lower performance on the rime and initial phoneme
matching tasks. Importantly, in this study, the rime
and phoneme tasks contained distracter items mat-
ched for global similarity to the cue words. This
manipulation precluded the use of a strategy based
on overall acoustic similarity to match the target and
response items (Byrne & Fielding-Barnsley, 1993).
Rather, it was necessary for the child to have access
to the segmental structure of the words. Thus, suc-
cessful performance on these tasks required access
to well-specified, rather than global, phonological
representations (Carroll & Snowling, 2001). In line
with these findings, Bird et al. (1995) suggested that
nonword reading and spelling difficulties observed
among speech-impaired children might be explained
by the fact that these children still represent words
as undifferentiated global wholes, rather than as a
series of segmented phonemes.
The difficulties that the family-risk and speech-
impaired groups showed in phonological awareness
when compared with controls confirmed their status
at high risk of reading difficulties. In line with this,
their concurrent reading attainments were poorer
than those of children of the same age and verbal
ability, as measured by a test of early word recogni-
tion skills suitable for children making their first
steps into literacy. As already mentioned, however,
an unexpected finding was there was only a trend
suggestive of differences between the groups in letter
knowledge. Furthermore, contrary to previous re-
search (Scarborough, 1990; Gallagher et al., 2000;
Byrne, Fielding-Barnsley, Ashley, & Larsen, 1997),
children with a family history of dyslexia did not
differ from the controls in the number of letter
sounds they knew. A feature of the present study
that may account for this discrepancy is that most of
the children in the family-risk group were recruited
because they had an older sibling who had already
been diagnosed as dyslexic (and was often receiving
intervention). Gallagher et al. (2000) found that
parents of children Ôat riskÕ of dyslexia spent more
time teaching letters to their pre-school children
than parents of control children. It may be that
parents who have at least one dyslexic child already
are more attuned to the need to help their child learn
letters than if their experience of dyslexia was their
own and many years ago. In contrast, the parents of
children with speech difficulties generally do not
associate these oral language problems with a risk of
written language difficulties and therefore, it can be
surmised, do not train letter skills.
Finally, it is interesting to note that, although
there is a close relationship between a child’s letter
knowledge and their initial sound matching skills
(Bowey, 1994; Johnston, Anderson, & Holligan,
1996), the lower performance of the family-risk
group could not be accounted for by poor letter
knowledge because they were performing within the
average range on this test. This finding underlines
the fact that children at high risk of reading diffi-
culties require training in explicit phonological
awareness; tuition in letter knowledge alone is not
sufficient to allow them to solve phonological seg-
mentation and categorisation tasks.
To conclude, the results of the present study
confirm the view that children with expressive
speech impairments in the absence of language
problems are at high risk of reading difficulties and
are on a continuum with children at family risk of
dyslexia. It is proposed that the shared risk factor is
a problem of phonological processing that can be
traced to poorly specified phonological representa-
tions. According to Walley (1993), vocabulary growth
during the pre-school years causes the phonological
representations of words to develop from global to
segmental form. Segmental phonological represen-
tations are required for the development of phoneme
awareness and underpin the acquisition of proficient
reading skills (i.e., decoding). However, the present
findings add to others that point to the fact that
there can be a dissociation between vocabulary and
phonological skills (e.g., Snowling, Van Wagtendonk,
& Stafford, 1988; Swan & Goswami, 1997). Thus,
the two groups of children at high risk of reading
difficulties presented with phonological processing
problems in the absence of vocabulary impairments.
In spite of their similar levels of crystallised voca-
bulary knowledge, the two high-risk groups shared a
deficit in phonological learning that compromised
their ability to acquire new words. We propose that
this difficulty provides a parsimonious explanation
for the range of phonological difficulties they
showed. If such children are unable to create seg-
mentally organised phonological representations,
then their recall of new words will suffer, although
they may show fewer difficulties on tests of recogni-
tion memory for these novel items. They will have
Children at risk of reading difficulties 637
8. difficulty in discriminating between accurate pro-
nunciations of familiar words and pronunciations
that are minimally distorted by a single phoneme
change. They will also show deficits on tasks that
require access to well-specified representations of
words in order to match words that share phonolo-
gical segments rather than global acoustic similarity
with each other. The findings of the present study
are consistent with these predictions. Moreover, as
has been argued elsewhere (Snowling, 2000b), chil-
dren who come to the task of learning to read with
poorly specified phonological representations have
difficulties in setting up mappings between ortho-
graphic and phonological sequences (Harm & Sei-
denberg, 1999).
The findings of the study also extend the evidence
that children with language impairments have diffi-
culty with the quick incidental learning of words that
are embedded in narrative form (Rice et al., 1994) to
the case of children with oral speech impairments.
Moreover, their difficulties were more marked for
production than for comprehension of these items. It
is possible therefore that, in the longer term, these
children will begin to show deficits in vocabulary
relative to their peers, aggravated by their poor
reading skills. Together with the other results of this
study, these findings indicate that the remediation of
speech difficulties in pre-school and school-aged
children is important not only for the successful
acquisition of reading but also to ensure the con-
tinued normal rate of growth of spoken vocabulary.
There are a number of limitations of the present
study that could have affected results. First, it is
important to note that the study does not speak to
the developmental precursors of the speech difficul-
ties for which the speech group were being treated.
The findings do not rule out the possible relevance of
earlier language delays that may have resolved in
either of the high-risk groups. Second, the children
in this study were studied at a relatively early stage
in their literacy development when there is consid-
erable variability in performance even in typically
developing children. This variability, together with
developmental constraints on some of the skills,
necessarily reduced the statistical power to detect
group differences. Indeed, many of the differences
reported for the variables assessed separately are
not significant if a strict Bonferroni correction is
applied to account for multiple comparisons. How-
ever, we would argue that to ignore such group dif-
ferences, where these have been predicted, would be
overly conservative. Scarborough and Dobrich
(1990) have pointed out that there is a tendency,
both in research and clinical practice, to overlook
subtle impairments in children with language delays
when skills, such as reading, are measured at a time
when normal development is at a plateau. This
argument could be applied to the present data set in
which many of the control children gained low scores
on the tests of reading-related skills. According to
Scarborough and Dobrich, it is when skills are in
ÔascendancyÕ and changing rapidly that language-
based deficits are more easily detectable. In sum-
mary, the present findings are important. Despite
the developmental limitations of some of the meas-
ures, the study provides clear evidence of difficulties
in a range of phonological skills relevant to literacy in
these two groups of children at high risk of reading
difficulties and argues that there is a continuum of
risk between speech difficulties and dyslexia.
Acknowledgements
This research was carried out as part of the first
author’s doctoral work, with support from a BBSRC
studentship. Preparation of the manuscript was
supported by an ESRC postdoctoral fellowship no.
T026271158.
We thank the parents, teachers and speech ther-
apists who helped, and all of the children who took
part in this study.
Correspondence to
Julia Carroll, Department of Psychology, University
of York, York YO10 5DD, UK; Email: j.carroll@
psych.york.ac.uk
References
Adams, M.J. (1990). Beginning to read. Cambridge, MA:
MIT Press.
Bird, J., Bishop, D.V.M., & Freeman, N.H. (1995).
Phonological awareness and literacy development in
children with expressive phonological impairment.
Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 446–
462.
Bishop, D.V.M., & Adams, C. (1990). A prospective
study of the relationship between specific language
impairment, phonological disorders and reading
retardation. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychi-
atry, 31, 1027–1050.
Bishop, D.V.M., North, T., & Donlan, C. (1996). Non-
word repetition as a behavioural marker for inherited
language impairment: Evidence from a twin study.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 37, 391–
403.
Bowey, J.A. (1994). Phonological sensitivity in novice
readers and nonreaders. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 58, 134–159.
Brady, S.E. (1997). Ability to encode phonological
representations: An underlying difficulty of poor
readers. In B. Blachman (Ed.), Foundations of reading
acquisition and dyslexia: Implications for early inter-
vention. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Byrne, B., & Fielding-Barnsley, R. (1993). Global
similarity effects in pre-school children. Reading
and Writing: An interdisciplinary journal, 5, 315–324.
Byrne, B., Fielding-Barnsley, R., Ashley, L., & Larsen,
K.P. (1997). Assessing the child’s and the environ-
ment’s contribution to reading acquisition – what we
638 Julia M. Carroll and Margaret J. Snowling
9. know and what we don’t know. In B. Blachman (Ed.),
Foundations of reading acquisition and dyslexia:
Implications for early intervention (pp. 265–285).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Carroll, J., & Snowling, M.J. (2001). The effects of
global similarity between stimuli on performance on
rime and alliteration tasks. Applied Psycholinguistics,
22, 327–342.
Catts, H. (1991). Early identification of dyslexia: Evi-
dence from a follow-up study of speech–language
impaired children. Annals of Dyslexia, 41, 163–177.
Content, A., Kolinsky, R., Morais, J., & Bertelson, P.
(1986). Phonetic segmentation in pre-readers: Effect
of corrective information. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 42, 49–72.
Dodd, B. (1995). Differential diagnosis and treatment of
children with speech disorder. London: Whurr Pub-
lishers.
Donaldson, J., & Scheffler, A. (1999). The Gruffalo.
London, UK: Macmillan Children’s books.
Dunn, L., Dunn, L., Whetton, C., & Pintilie, D. (1982).
British Picture Vocabulary Scale. Windsor, England:
Nfer-Nelson.
Elbro, C., Borstrom, I., & Peterson, D.K. (1998).
Predicting dyslexia from kindergarten: The impor-
tance of distinctness of phonological representations.
Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 36–60.
Fowler, C.A. (1991). How early phonological develop-
ment might set the stage for phoneme awareness. In
S. Brady & D. Schankweiler (Eds.), Phonological
processes in literacy. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erl-
baum Associates.
Gallagher, A., Frith, U., & Snowling, M.J. (2000).
Precursors of literacy delay among children at genetic
risk of dyslexia. Journal of Child Psychology and
Psychiatry, 41, 203–213.
Griffiths, Y.M., & Snowling, M.J. (2001). Auditory word
identification and phonological skills in dyslexic and
average readers. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 419–
439.
Harm, M.W., & Seidenberg, M.S. (1999). Phonology,
reading and dyslexia: Insights from connectionist
models. Psychological Review, 106, 491–528.
Hatcher, P.J. (2000). Sound linkage. London: Whurr
Publishers.
Joanisse, M.F., Manis, F.R., Keating, P., & Seidenberg,
M.S. (2000). Language deficits in dyslexic children:
Speech perception, phonology and morphology. Jour-
nal of Experimental Child Psychology, 77, 30–60.
Johnston, R.S., Anderson, M.A., & Holligan, C. (1996).
Knowledge of the alphabet and explicit awareness of
phonemes in pre-readers: The nature of the relation-
ship. Reading and Writing, 8, 217–234.
Kamhi, A.G., & Catts, H.W. (1986). Toward an under-
standing of developmental language and reading
disorders. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,
51, 337–347.
Leitao, S., Hogben, J., & Fletcher, J. (1997). Phonolo-
gical processing skills in speech and language
impaired children. European Journal of Disorders of
Communication, 32, 73–93.
Levi, G., Capozzi, F., Fabrizi, A., & Sechi, E. (1982).
Language disorders and prognosis for reading dis-
abilities in developmental age. Perceptual and Motor
Skills, 54, 1119–1122.
Locke, J. (1997). The development of disabilities in
dyslexia. In C. Hulme & M. Snowling (Eds.), Dyslexia:
Biology, cognition and intervention (pp. 72–95).
London: Whurr Publishers Ltd.
McBride-Chang, C. (1996). Models of speech perception
and phonological processing in reading. Child Devel-
opment, 67, 1836–1856.
Metsala, J.L. (1997). Spoken word recognition in read-
ing disabled children. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 89, 159–169.
Metsala, J.L., & Walley, A.C. (1998). Spoken vocabulary
growth and the segmental restructuring of lexical
representations: Precursors to phonemic awareness
and early reading ability. In J.L. Metsala & L.C. Ehri
(Eds.), Word recognition in beginning literacy (pp. 89–
120). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Morrison, C., Chappell, N., & Ellis, A. (1997). Age of
acquisition norms for a large set of object names and
their relation to adult estimates and other variables.
The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,
50A, 528–560.
Muter, V., Hulme, C., Snowling, M.J., & Taylor, S.
(1998). Segmentation, not rhyming, predicts early
progress in learning to read. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 71, 3–27.
Nathan, E., Stackhouse, J., Goulandris, N., & Snow-
ling, M.J. (in press). Early literacy development of
children with speech difficulties: The role of language
and speech processing ability. Journal of Speech,
Language and Hearing Research.
Oetting, J.B., Rice, M.L., & Swank, L.K. (1995). Quick
incidental learning (QUIL) of words by school-age
children with and without SLI. Journal of Speech and
Hearing Research, 38, 434–445.
Pennington, B.F., & Lefly, D.L. (2001). Early reading
development in children at family risk for dyslexia.
Child Development, 72, 816–833.
Ramus, F. (2001). Talk of two theories. Nature, 412,
393–395.
Rice, M.L., Oetting, J.B., Marquis, J., & Bode, J. (1994).
Frequency of input effects on word comprehension of
children with specific language impairment. Journal
of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 106–121.
Scarborough, H.S. (1990). Very early language deficits
in dyslexic children. Child Development, 61, 1728–
1743.
Scarborough, H.S., & Dobrich, W. (1990). Development
of children with early language delay. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Research, 33, 70–83.
Shriberg, L.D., & Kwiatkowski, J. (1982). Phonological
disorders: III. A procedure for assessing severity of
involvement. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disor-
ders, 47, 256–270.
Snodgrass, J.G., & Vanderwart, M. (1980). A standar-
dised set of 260 pictures: Norms for name agreement,
image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity.
Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning
and Memory, 6, 174–215.
Snowling, M.J. (1981). Phonemic deficits in develop-
mental dyslexia. Psychological Research, 43, 219–
234.
Snowling, M.J. (2000a). Dyslexia. Oxford: Blackwells.
Snowling, M.J. (2000b). Language and literacy skills:
Who is at risk and why? In D.V.M. Bishop & L.B.
Leonard (Eds.), Speech and language impairments in
Children at risk of reading difficulties 639
10. children: Causes, characteristics, intervention and
outcome (pp. 245–259). Hove, East Sussex: Psychol-
ogy Press.
Snowling, M.J., Bishop, D.V.M., & Stothard, S.E.
(2000). Is preschool language impairment a risk
factor for dyslexia in adolescence? Journal of Child
Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 587–600.
Snowling, M.J., Gallagher, A., & Frith, U. (2003). Family
risk of dyslexia is continuous: Individual differences
in the precursors of reading skill. Child Development,
74, 358–373.
Snowling, M.J., Goulandris, N., Bowlby, M., & Howell,
P. (1986). Segmentation and speech perception in
relation to reading skill: A developmental analysis.
Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 41, 489–
507.
Snowling, M.J., & Hulme, C. (1994). The development of
phonological skills. Philosophical Transactions of the
Royal Society of London, 346, 21–27.
Snowling, M.J., Hulme, C., Wells, B., & Goulandris, N.
(1992). Continuities between speech and spelling in a
case of developmental dyslexia. Reading and Writing,
4, 19–31.
Snowling, M.J., Van Wagtendonk, B., & Stafford, C.
(1988). Object naming deficits in developmental
dyslexia. Journal of Research in Reading, 11, 67–85.
Stackhouse, J. (2000). Barriers to literacy development
in children with speech and language difficulties. In
D.V.M. Bishop & L.B. Leonard (Eds.), Speech and
language impairments in children. Hove, East Sussex:
Psychology Press.
Stackhouse, J., & Snowling, M.J. (1992). Barriers to
literacy development in two cases of developmental
verbal dyspraxia. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 9, 273–
299.
Stackhouse, J., & Wells, B. (1997). How do speech and
language problems affect literacy development? In C.
Hulme & M.J. Snowling (Eds.), Dyslexia: Biology,
cognition and intervention (pp. 182–211). London:
Whurr Publishing.
Stanovich, K.E., & Siegal, L.S. (1994). Phenotypic
performance profile of children with reading disabil-
ities: A regression-based test of the phonological-core
variable-difference model. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 86, 24–53.
Swan, D., & Goswami, U. (1997). Phonological aware-
ness deficits in developmental dyslexia and the
phonological representations hypothesis. Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, 66, 18–41.
Vellutino, F.R., Scanlon, D.M., & Spearing, D. (1995).
Semantic and phonological coding in poor and
normal readers. Journal of Experimental Child Psy-
chology, 59, 76–123.
Vellutino, F.R., Steger, J.A., Harding, C.J., & Phillips, F.
(1975). Verbal vs non-verbal paired associate learn-
ing in poor and normal readers. Neuropsychologia,
13, 75–82.
Wagner, R.K., & Torgesen, J.K. (1987). The nature of
phonological processing and its causal role in the
acquisition of reading skills. Psychological Bulletin,
101, 192–212.
Walley, A. (1993). The role of vocabulary development in
children’s spoken word recognition and segmentation
ability. Developmental Review, 13, 286–350.
Manuscript accepted 19 May 2003
640 Julia M. Carroll and Margaret J. Snowling