Search

Background: Disfluency is a multifactorial concept that can be linked to several of the language production levels, in both typical and atypical populations. In children, the language system is still developing and few studies have explored disfluency patterns. In typical development (TD), in particular, studies have shown discrepancies according to the language being considered. In neurodevelopmental disorders, such as developmental dyslexia (DD), it is still unclear whether the pattern of disfluency is similar to TD. Aims: To analyse the type of disfluency and their evolution in French children aged 8–12 years. Also to compare the pattern of disfluency in DD and TD, and to test whether disfluencies were correlated with reading difficulties. Methods & Procedures: A total of 25 children with DD and 21 children with TD aged 8–12.6 years produced an autobiographical narrative. Seven types of disfluencies were coded: part‐word repetitions; repetitions of monosyllabic words; other types of repetitions (words and phrases); filled pauses; revisions—substitutions; revisions—additions; and abandoned utterances. We compared the proportion of each disfluency in DD and TD. Spearman correlations were then performed between disfluencies, reading performance and age. Outcomes & Results: The results showed that both DD and TD children mainly produced filled pauses, repetitions of monosyllabic words and substitutions. Both groups displayed a high rate of disfluency (> 10%). No correlations with age were found. Correlations with reading performance were significant in the TD group only. Conclusions & Implications: The study showed that DD is not characterized by a specific pattern of disfluency. Additionally, disfluency rates were similar in children aged 8–12 years. In contrast to other languages, the current study suggests that French‐speaking children have a high rate of disfluency. The study also suggests that disfluency should be interpreted with caution in DD, given that TD children also have a high rate of disfluency. Therefore, it seems important to adapt the pathological threshold of disfluency to the language being spoken in order to avoid an overestimation of the prevalence of these deficits in French‐speaking children. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: TD children produce a high rate of disfluency, which is also influenced by the language being spoken. No study looked at the effect of DD on disfluency production. Nonetheless, problems in reading comprehension and reduced reading experience may impact lexical development and speech fluency. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge: In our study, both groups (French‐speaking children) produced a substantial amount of disfluency as compared with other languages (> 10%). Additionally, the pattern of disfluency was similar in TD and DD (namely, filled pauses, prolongations repetitions of monosyllabic words and substitutions). In the DD group, disfluency production was not correlated with reading performance. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: These results indicate that it is crucial to consider the language being spoken when examining disfluency in order to avoid an overestimation of language difficulties in some languages, such as in French. Moreover, the production of disfluencies in DD should not be considered as language dysfunction since the pattern of disfluency what quite similar in TD and DD, and did not correlate with their reading difficulties. [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]

Background: The impact of hearing impairment is typically studied in terms of its effects on speech perception, yet this fails to account for the interactive nature of communication. Recently, there has been a move towards studying the effects of age‐related hearing impairment on interaction, often using referential communication tasks; however, little is known about how interaction in these tasks compares to everyday communication. Aims: To investigate utterances and requests for clarification used in one‐to‐one conversations between older adults with hearing impairment and younger adults without hearing impairment, and between two younger adults without hearing impairment. Methods & Procedures: A total of 42 participants were recruited to the study and split into 21 pairs, 10 with two younger adults without hearing impairment and 11 with one younger adult without hearing impairment and one older participant with age‐related hearing impairment (hard of hearing). Results from three tasks—spontaneous conversation and two trials of a referential communication task—were compared. A total of 5 min of interaction in each of the three tasks was transcribed, and the frequency of requests for clarification, mean length of utterance and total utterances were calculated for individual participants and pairs. Outcomes & Results: When engaging in spontaneous conversation, participants made fewer requests for clarification than in the referential communication, regardless of hearing status/age (p ≤ 0.012). Participants who were hard of hearing made significantly more requests for clarification than their partners without hearing impairment in only the second trial of the referential communication task (U = 25, p = 0.019). Mean length of utterance was longer in spontaneous conversation than in the referential communication task in the pairs without hearing impairment (p ≤ 0.021), but not in the pairs including a person who was hard of hearing. However, participants who were hard of hearing used significantly longer utterances than their partners without hearing impairment in the spontaneous conversation (U = 8, p < 0.001) but not in the referential communication tasks. Conclusions & Implications: The findings suggest that patterns of interaction observed in referential communication tasks differ to those observed in spontaneous conversation. The results also suggest that fatigue may be an important consideration when planning studies of interaction that use multiple conditions of a communication task, particularly when participants are older or hard of hearing. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Age‐related hearing impairment is known to affect communication; however, the majority of studies have focused on its impact on speech perception in controlled conditions. This indicates little about the impact on everyday, interactive, communication. What this study adds to the existing knowledge: We investigated utterance length and requests for clarification in one‐to‐one conversations between pairs consisting of one older adult who is hard of hearing and one younger adult without hearing impairment, or two younger adults without hearing impairment. Results from three tasks (two trials of a referential communication task and spontaneous conversation) were compared. The findings demonstrated a significant effect of task type on requests for clarification in both groups. Furthermore, in spontaneous conversation, older adults who were hard of hearing used significantly longer utterances than their partners without hearing impairment. This pattern was not observed in the referential communication task. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: These findings have important implications for generalizing results from controlled communication tasks to more everyday conversation. Specifically, they suggest that the previously observed strategy of monopolizing conversation, possibly as an attempt to control it, may be more frequently used by older adults who are hard of hearing in natural conversation than in a more contrived communication task. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]