Search

Background: Impaired discourse production is commonly reported for individuals with traumatic brain injury (TBI). Discourse deficits can negatively impact community integration, return to employment and quality of life. COVID‐19 restrictions have reduced in‐person assessment services for people with communication impairments. Advances in telehealth may help speech and language therapists (SLTs) to assess monologic discourse more systematically and improve access to services for patients who may find it difficult to attend in‐person. Aims: To examine the feasibility of telehealth administration of narrative and procedural discourse tasks with individuals with TBI and matched controls. Methods & Procedures: A total of 20 individuals with TBI and 20 healthy controls, aged 18–55 years, were directly recruited from the UK and indirectly recruited from the US. For participants with TBI, time post‐injury was at least 3 months with no diagnosis of aphasia. Control participants were matched for sex and as closely as possible for age. Feasibility of measures was based upon the time to administer both narrative tasks, the report of any technological problems, and participant feed. Discourse samples were transcribed verbatim and analysed using story grammar analysis (for narrative discourse) and identification of propositions (for procedural discourse). Interrater reliability was calculated using percentage agreement for 50% of the data. Non‐parametric analyses were used to analyse the performance of the two groups. Outcomes & Results: Narrative and procedural discourse samples were collected via telehealth in approximately 10 min with no reported technical difficulties or complaints from any participants. For narrative discourse performance, there were significant differences for the TBI and control groups for measures of complete episodes (p < 0.001) and missing episodes (p = 0.005). No significant group differences were noted for any of the procedural discourse measures. Conclusions & Implications: Results support the feasibility of collecting discourse samples via telehealth. Although the participants' discourse performance distinguished the TBI and control groups on the narrative task, no differences between the groups were noted for the procedural task. The narrative discourse task may have been more difficult than the procedural task, or video cue support reduced the cognitive load of the procedural task. This finding suggests the use of more complex procedural tasks without video cue support may be needed. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Although little research has explored the feasibility of administering discourse assessments for individuals with TBI via telehealth, some studies have found that discourse interventions can be feasibly administered via telehealth. It is also well established that individuals with TBI struggle with the supra‐structural and macro‐linguistic elements of discourse production. Both procedural and narrative discourse tasks have been found to differentiate individuals with TBI from healthy controls. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: Few studies have investigated the feasibility of, and procedures for, administering discourse tasks via telehealth. Additionally, the inclusion of multiple types of discourse tasks to parse cognitive–communication abilities is lacking in the current literature. Findings from this study support that narrative and procedural discourse can be feasibly sampled via telehealth and that international collaboration for research on this topic can facilitate such studies. Individuals with TBI performed more poorly on three measures of narrative discourse. No differences between groups were identified for the procedural task. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Telehealth assessment for discourse provides flexibility for both the individual with TBI and the speech–language therapist and does not compromise the quality of data collected. The administration of discourse tasks and collection of data was not time‐consuming and was well accepted by the study participants. Additionally, international research collaboration not only expands potential participation in research but increases the opportunity to recruit and study more diverse groups. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: As delays or disorders in early language and communication are the most prevalent symptom in children with disabilities, early screening is crucial to promote prevention, early diagnosis, and intervention. However, to the best of our knowledge, no screening tool is available for the joint assessment of early language and social communication skills in European Portuguese (EP)‐learning children, which is critical for screening, monitoring and enrolment in appropriate early intervention services. Aims: (1) To adapt and validate the EP version of the Communication and Symbolic Behaviour Scales Developmental Profile™ (CSBS DP™) Infant–Toddler Checklist, a parental report for the screening of early language and social communication skills. (2) To conduct a cross‐cultural comparison between the EP adaptation and the original US version. Methods & Procedures: A total of 611 EP‐learning children (ages 6–24 months) were assessed on the CSBS DP Infant–Toddler Checklist. Normative data, psychometric characteristics (i.e., internal consistency and test–retest reliability), and cross‐cultural comparison between the EP and the original version were explored. Outcomes & Results: Internal consistency ranged from good to excellent and the test–retest reliability was excellent. The performance of the EP and US samples matched on almost all scores. However, EP children performed significantly better than their American peers in the Social compositive at 22 months and in the Symbolic composite at 20 months. No further differences were found. Conclusions & Implications: These findings showed that the EP CSBS DP Infant–Toddler Checklist seems to be a reliable screening tool of communicative and symbolic behaviours for EP‐learning children, which can be particularly relevant for decision‐making in clinical practice. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Early communication skills are known to be related to later language outcomes. Thus, screening tools for the early identification of children at risk for language and communication impairments, which may lead to monitoring and early intervention, have the potential to promote better outcomes. However, to the best of our knowledge, no screening tool is available for the assessment of early communication abilities in EP‐learning children. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: This study adapted and validated the EP CSBS DP Infant–Toddler Checklist, the first published parental report checklist for the assessment of early communication skills in EP. It described the psychometric characteristics of the adapted checklist, summarized the newly available normative data for EP‐learning infants and toddlers, and compared the performance of EP‐learning children with the original standardization sample reported for American English. The results demonstrated that this tool is a reliable instrument for the early screening of language, communicative and symbolic behaviours for EP‐learning children between 6 and 24 months of age. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Given that early screening is crucial to promote prevention, early diagnosis and intervention, the availability of this tool is particularly relevant for children monitoring and their enrolment in appropriate early intervention services, helping decision‐making in clinical practice, in line with current guidelines regarding early monitoring and intervention to promote and support better outcomes. Thus, the tool and related normative data will be useful for paediatricians, family doctors, primary healthcare providers, developmental psychologists and speech–language therapists, among other professionals in the healthcare and educational fields, concerned with speech, language, and communication development and impairments. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: To identify how speech‐language pathologists (SLPs) in the United States are screening for and identifying dysphagia. To do this, we examined the approaches most often used to screen for dysphagia and the influence of contextual factors such as setting, continuing education and means of staying up to date with the most current literature on screening approaches. Method: A web‐based survey composed of 32 questions was developed and field tested for content, relevance and workflow. The survey was distributed online, via social media, online SLP forums and through the American Speech‐Language‐Hearing Association's Special Interest Group 13 (swallowing disorders). One hundred and thirty‐seven clinicians from the United States completed the survey and were included for analysis using descriptive statistics and linear regression modelling to assess associations of continuing education and years practicing with screening protocols and consumption of evidence. Results: Respondents worked in a variety of settings, including acute care, skilled nursing facilities, and inpatient rehabilitation. Most respondents worked with adult populations (88%). The most common screening protocols reported were a volume‐dependent water swallow test (74%), subjective patient report (66%), and trials of solids/liquids (49%). Twenty‐four percent (24%) reported using a questionnaire, the Eating Assessment Tool (80%) being most common. How clinicians consume their evidence was significantly associated with the types of screening approaches used. Continuing education hours were significantly associated with dysphagia screening protocol choice (p < 0.001) and how clinicians stayed up to date with evidence (p < 0.001). Conclusions: Results from this study provide an in‐depth look at the choices clinicians are making in the field regarding how to effectively screen patients for the presence of dysphagia. Contextual factors such as evidence base consumption patterns should serve researchers to continue seeking alternative ways to share evidence with clinicians, accessibly. Associations between continuing education and protocol choice show the need for continued evidence‐based and high‐quality continuing education opportunities. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: This study provides an in‐depth look at the choices clinicians are making in the field regarding effective dysphagia screening practices. Clinician screening choices are examined with contextual factors such as evidence base consumption patterns and continuing education. This paper increases knowledge of the most used dysphagia screening practices and context for clinicians and researchers to improve use, evidence and dissemination of best practices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The language of the science curriculum is complex, even in the early grades. To communicate their scientific observations, children must produce complex syntax, particularly complement clauses (e.g., I think it will float; We noticed that it vibrates). Complex syntax is often challenging for children with developmental language disorder (DLD), and thus their learning and communication of science may be compromised. Aims: We asked whether recast therapy delivered in the context of a science curriculum led to gains in complement clause use and scientific content knowledge. To understand the efficacy of recast therapy, we compared changes in science and language knowledge in children who received treatment for complement clauses embedded in a first‐grade science curriculum to two active control conditions (vocabulary + science, phonological awareness + science). Methods & Procedures: This 2‐year single‐site three‐arm parallel randomized controlled trial was conducted in Delaware, USA. Children with DLD, not yet in first grade and with low accuracy on complement clauses, were eligible. Thirty‐three 4–7‐year‐old children participated in the summers of 2018 and 2019 (2020 was cancelled due to COVID‐19). We assigned participants to arms using 1:1:1 pseudo‐random allocation (avoiding placing siblings together). The intervention consisted of 39 small‐group sessions of recast therapy, robust vocabulary instruction or phonological awareness intervention during eight science units over 4 weeks, followed by two science units (1 week) taught without language intervention. Pre‐/post‐measures were collected 3 weeks before and after camp by unmasked assessors. Outcomes & Results: Primary outcome measures were accuracy on a 20‐item probe of complement clause production and performance on ten 10‐item unit tests (eight science + language, two science only). Complete data were available for 31 children (10 grammar, 21 active control); two others were lost to follow‐up. Both groups made similar gains on science unit tests for science + language content (pre versus post, d = 2.9, p < 0.0001; group, p = 0.24). The grammar group performed significantly better at post‐test than the active control group (d = 2.5, p = 0.049) on complement clause probes and marginally better on science‐only unit tests (d = 2.5, p = 0.051). Conclusions & Implications: Children with DLD can benefit from language intervention embedded in curricular content and learn both language and science targets taught simultaneously. Tentative findings suggest that treatment for grammar targets may improve academic outcomes. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject: We know that recast therapy focused on morphology is effective but very time consuming. Treatment for complex syntax in young children has preliminary efficacy data available. Prior research provides mixed evidence as to children's ability to learn language targets in conjunction with other information. What this study adds: This study provides additional data supporting the efficacy of intensive complex syntax recast therapy for children ages 4–7 with Developmental Language Disorder. It also provides data that children can learn language targets and science curricular content simultaneously. What are the clinical implications of this work?: As SLPs, we have to talk about something to deliver language therapy; we should consider talking about curricular content. Recast therapy focused on syntactic frames is effective with young children. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stroke is one of the leading causes of death in the United States. Aphasia is a language impairment which results as a consequence of stroke. Gender differences are reported in underlying mechanisms of stroke, however, gender differences in aphasia type and severity remain unclear. Aims: To examine gender differences in aphasia impairment based on data from AphasiaBank, a research repository of data obtained from studies of aphasia. Methods & Procedures: The data were collected from AphasiaBank for 294 persons with aphasia (PWA) (172 men, 122 women). Baseline comparisons by gender groups were completed using independent samples t‐tests and Pearson Chi square statistics. Univariate comparisons of the total Western Aphasia Battery—Revised (WAB‐R) ‐AQ and ‐R subtests' scores were compared between the two groups using independent samples t‐tests. Multivariate comparisons were completed by using multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA). Outcomes & Results: Gender differences were observed in the severity of aphasia with men exhibiting more severe aphasia than women. Analyses of WAB‐R indicated greater impairment among men based on AQ and greater impairment was observed in individual subtest performance. Men exhibited statistically significantly lower WAB‐R AQs than women (67.4 versus 75.6). Lower WAB‐R AQs were derived from lower scores among men on individual subtests; information content, fluency, repetition, sentence completion, responsive speech and tests of comprehension (yes/no, auditory word recognition and sequential commands). Conclusions & Implications: This study offers evidence of gender differences in aphasia severity, global communication impairment and lower scores on individual subtests used to derive the WAB‐R AQ. The limitations of the study with suggestions for future directions are presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: There is considerable variability in the presentation of developmental language disorder (DLD). Disagreement amongst professionals about how to characterize and interpret the variability complicates both the research on understanding the nature of DLD and the best clinical framework for diagnosing and treating children with DLD. We describe and statistically examine three primary possible models for characterizing the variability in presentation in DLD: predictable subtypes; individual differences; and continuum/spectrum. Aims: To test these three models of DLD in a population‐based sample using two distinct types of cluster analyses. Methods & Procedures: This study included children with DLD (n = 505) from the US Epidemiological Study of Language Impairment database. All available language and cognitive measures were included. Two cluster methods were used: Ward's method and K‐means. Optimal cluster sizes were selected using Bayesian information criteria (BIC). Bootstrapping and permutation methods were used to evaluate randomness of clustering. Outcomes & Results: Both clustering analyses yielded more than 10 clusters, and the clusters did not have spatial distinction: many of these clusters were not clinically interpretable. However, tests of random clustering revealed that the cluster solutions obtained did not arise from random aggregation. Conclusions & Implications: Non‐random clustering coupled with a large number of non‐interpretable subtypes provides empirical support for the continuum/spectrum and individual differences models. Although there was substantial support for the continuum/spectrum model and weaker support for the individual differences model, additional research testing these models should be completed. Based on these results, clinicians working with children with DLD should focus on creating treatment plans that address the severity of functioning rather than seeking to identify and treat distinct subtypes. Additional consideration should be given to reconceptualizing DLD as a spectrum condition. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Treatment intensity is an important factor in designing and delivering treatments to children with language impairment (LI). However, to date very little is understood about cumulative intervention intensity for children with LI in the US public school system. Aims To examine treatment intensity (dose: time spent on language; frequency: number of sessions; duration: one academic year) as delivered to children with LI within US public schools and to explore its relation to children's language outcomes. Methods & Procedures A total of 233 children with LI on the caseloads of 73 speech-language pathologists (SLPs) participated. Direct child measures, weekly treatment logs and videotapes were collected to characterize children's language outcomes and treatment experiences. Outcomes & Results Children on average received 36 min of treatment during 1.3 treatment sessions per week. Children's language severity did not predict children's treatment intensity. Structural equation modelling indicated a significant interaction between frequency and dose of treatment: children receiving high frequency and low dose, or low frequency and high dose treatment had better outcomes than children receiving high frequency, high dose or low frequency, low dose treatment. Conclusions & Implications Findings suggest that more intensive language treatment, measured as time, is not necessarily associated with better treatment outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Numerous studies suggest a positive relationship between the home literacy environment (HLE) and children's language and literacy skills, yet very little research has focused on the HLE of children with language impairment (LI). Children with LI are at risk for reading difficulties; thus, understanding the nature and frequency of their home literacy interactions is warranted. Aims To identify unique HLE profiles within a large sample of children with LI, and to determine relevant caregiver- and child-specific factors that predict children's profile membership. Methods & Procedures Participants were 195 kindergarten and first-grade children with LI who were receiving school-based language therapy. Caregivers completed a comprehensive questionnaire regarding their child's HLE, and the extent to which their child engaged in shared book reading, were taught about letters, initiated or asked to be read to, and chose to read independently. Caregivers also answered questions regarding the highest level of maternal education, caregiver history of reading difficulties, and caregiver reading habits. Children completed a language and literacy battery in the fall of their academic year. Outcomes & Results Latent profile analyses indicated a three-profile solution, representing high, average and low frequency of the selected HLE indicators. Multinomial regression further revealed that caregivers' own reading habits influenced children's profile membership, as did child age and language abilities. Conclusions & Implications These results highlight the considerable variability in the frequency of home literacy interactions of children with LI. Future work examining relations between familial reading practices and literacy outcomes for children with LI is warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Language sampling, recognized as a gold standard for expressive language assessment, is often elicited using wordless picture storybooks. A series of wordless storybooks, commonly referred to as 'Frog' stories, have been frequently used in language-based research with children from around the globe. Aims To examine the impact that differences in stories have on narrative output by comparing narrative productions across a series of five storybooks produced by 831 bilingual (Spanish-English) children in kindergarten through third grade. Methods & Procedures Each participant produced oral narratives using one of the five Frog storybooks in both English and Spanish. The narratives were recorded, transcribed and coded for a variety of measures of language production. Outcomes & Results Negligible differences were observed in language measures when comparing groups of children who told different stories, with the exception of lexical diversity. Conclusions & Implications The implications of using different storybooks to elicit narrative language samples from children are discussed from the perspectives of research and clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]