Specific Language Impairment and Early Second Language Acquisition: The Risk of Over- and Underdiagnosis
Specific Language Impairment and Early Second Language Acquisition: The Risk of Over- and Underdiagnosis
复制标题
DOI：
10.1007/s12187-013-9230-6
复制
发表时间：
2014-12-01
影响因子：
2.8
通讯作者：
Schulz, Petra
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Grimm, Angela;Schulz, Petra
特殊语言障碍（SLI）的儿童和家庭风险因素，包括早期语言里程碑的延迟掌握和语言障碍的家族史，已被发现影响更多的SLI儿童比正常发育（TD）儿童。然而，很少或没有研究探讨是否流行单语和早期第二语言（eL 2）学习者之间的差异。此外，在临床环境中的误诊程度是未知的，以及是否单语和eL 2儿童在过度和诊断不足的比例不同。本研究比较了两个语言组的患病率的危险因素和（误）诊断为SLI。样本包括92名单语儿童（69名TD，23名SLI）和74名eL 2儿童（55名TD，19名SLI），年龄在5-8岁之间，以及他们的父母。通过父母问卷评估儿童/家庭危险因素的患病率;通过标准化测试将儿童识别为（非）SLI与其临床诊断进行比较，计算误诊率。除了诵读困难/书写困难，儿童和家庭危险因素的比率在两个语言组中是相同的，正确识别了多达一半的SLI儿童。SLI识别和临床诊断之间的相关性分析表明中度正相关。单语儿童和eL 2儿童的误诊率各不相同，在各组中，诊断不足比过度诊断更常见。此外，过度诊断率略高于eL 2儿童比单语者。总之，在单语者和eL 2学习者中，SLI的正确临床诊断是困难的;在eL 2儿童中，正确诊断为未受损尤其具有挑战性。我们的研究结果表明，补充标准化的语言评估与父母的信息有助于减少误诊率在这两种类型的学习者。
Child and family risk factors of Specific Language Impairment (SLI), including delayed mastery of early language milestones and family history of language impairment, have been found to affect more SLI children than typically developing (TD) children. However, little to no research has examined whether prevalence differs between monolingual and early second language (eL2) learners. Furthermore, the degree of misdiagnosis in clinical settings is unknown as well as whether monolingual and eL2 children differ in the proportion of over- and underdiagnosis. The present study compared both language groups regarding the prevalence of risk factors and (mis)diagnosis as SLI. The sample included 92 monolingual (69 TD, 23 SLI) and 74 eL2 children (55 TD, 19 SLI), aged 5-8 years, and their parents. Prevalence of child/family risk factors was assessed via parental questionnaire; misdiagnosis was calculated by comparing children's identification as (non)SLI via a standardized test with their clinical diagnosis. Except for dyslexia/dysgraphia, the rate of child and family risk factors was the same in both language groups, correctly identifying up to half of the SLI children. Correlation analyses between SLI-identification and clinical diagnosis indicated a moderate positive association. The rates of misdiagnosis in monolingual and eL2 children varied, with underdiagnosis being more frequent than overdiagnosis across groups. Moreover, the rate of overdiagnosis was marginally higher for eL2 children than for monolinguals. Summarizing, correct clinical diagnosis as SLI is difficult in both monolinguals and in eL2 learners; a correct diagnosis as unimpaired is especially challenging in eL2 children. Our results suggest that complementing standardized language assessments with parental information helps to reduce the rate of misdiagnosis in both types of learners.