Comparing Morphosyntactic Profiles of Children With Developmental Language Disorder or Language Disorder Associated With Autism Spectrum Disorder.
Comparing Morphosyntactic Profiles of Children With Developmental Language Disorder or Language Disorder Associated With Autism Spectrum Disorder.
复制标题
比较患有发育性语言障碍或与自闭症谱系障碍相关的语言障碍的儿童的形态句法特征。
DOI：
10.1044/2019_ajslp-19-00207
复制
发表时间：
2020
影响因子：
2.6
通讯作者：
Finestack,Lizbeth
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Huang,Timothy;Finestack,Lizbeth
目的先前的跨人群比较表明，发育性语言障碍（DLD）儿童和自闭症谱系障碍（LD-ASD）相关语言障碍儿童的形态句法特征有相当大的重叠。本研究的目的是通过标准化、规范参考评估和语言样本分析，进一步检查和比较两个种群的形态句法特征。方法采用结构化摄影表达性语言测试（第三版）（Dawson et al., 2003）和生成句法指数（inApplied Psycholinguistics, 11(1), 1990 by Scarborough）对21名DLD儿童（5;6-8；1[年；月]）和15名LD-ASD儿童（4;4 - 9;8）的形态句法特征进行比较。结果在结构化摄影表达语言测试（第三版）评估的26个结构中，两组的形态句法特征总体上没有显著差异。卡方分析确定了DLD组优于LD-ASD组的两个结构（即分词和连词“and”）。同样，在56项产出句法指数的评估中，各组的形态句法特征也没有显著差异。分析发现，DLD组只在一个结构上优于LD-ASD组（即S8：不定式），LD-ASD组在四个结构上优于DLD组（即Q9: Why/when/which等；Q6：带有助动词、情态或连词的wh问句；Q4：带有动词的wh问句；以及Q2：常规问题）。结论DLD患儿与LD-ASD患儿的形态句法特征无显著差异。研究结果还表明，在以前的研究中没有关注的形式上存在潜在的弱点。对于临床医生来说，重要的是使用标准化评估和语言样本分析来评估每种形式，以充分了解DLD或LD-ASD儿童的语言概况。
PurposePrevious cross-population comparisons suggest a considerable overlap in the morphosyntactic profiles of children with developmental language disorder (DLD) and children who experience language disorder associated with autism spectrum disorder (LD-ASD). The goal of this study was to further examine and compare the morphosyntactic profiles of the two populations using both standardized, norm-referenced assessments and language sample analysis.MethodWe used the Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test–Third Edition (Dawson et al., 2003) and the Index of Productive Syntax (inApplied Psycholinguistics, 11(1), 1990 by Scarborough) to compare the morphosyntactic profiles of 21 children with DLD (5;6–8;1 [years;months]) and 15 children with LD-ASD (4;4–9;8).ResultsOverall, both groups' morphosyntactic profiles were not significantly different based on the 26 structures assessed by the Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test–Third Edition. Chi-square analyses identified two structures on which the DLD group outperformed the LD-ASD group (i.e., participle and the conjunction “and”). Likewise, the groups' morphosyntactic profiles were not significantly different based on the 56 items assessed by the Index of Productive Syntax. Analyses identified only one structure on which the DLD group outperformed the LD-ASD group (i.e., S8: Infinitive) and four structures on which the LD-ASD group outperformed the DLD group (i.e., Q9: Why/when/which, etc.; Q6:Wh-question with auxiliary, modal, or copula; Q4:Wh-question with verb; and Q2: Routine question).ConclusionsStudy results suggest that the morphosyntactic profiles of children with DLD and children with LD-ASD are not significantly different. Results also suggest potential weaknesses on forms that have not been the focus of previous studies. It is important for clinicians to assess each of these forms using both standardized assessments and language sample analysis to gain a full understanding of the language profiles of children with DLD or LD-ASD.
登录
查看更多内容
在自然环境中评估儿童的语言
DOI：
--
发表时间：
1983
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
N. Lund;J. Duchan
通讯作者：
J. Duchan
DOI：
10.1044/jshr.3906.1239
发表时间：
1996-12-01
期刊：
JOURNAL OF SPEECH AND HEARING RESEARCH
影响因子：
--
作者：
Rice, ML;Wexler, K
通讯作者：
Wexler, K
评估西班牙语英语学习者英语语法发展的方法比较
DOI：
10.1044/persp2.sig16.45
发表时间：
2017
期刊：
Perspectives of the ASHA Special Interest Groups
影响因子：
--
作者：
Lisa Fitton;M. Wofford;Kristina N. Bustamante;Natasha M. De Novi;Bibiana M. Nunez;Carla L. Wood
通讯作者：
Carla L. Wood
影响因子：
3.9
作者：
HOWLIN, P
通讯作者：
HOWLIN, P
测试回顾：Wiig, E. H.、Semel, E. 和 Secord, W. A.（2013 年）语言基础临床评估 - 第五版 (CELF-5)。
DOI：
--
发表时间：
2015
期刊：
影响因子：
--
作者：
M. Coret;Adam Mccrimmon
通讯作者：
Adam Mccrimmon