Word Learning in Reading and Language Impairment Subgroups

好了！ 项目摘要/摘要 有语言学习障碍的儿童，包括特殊语言障碍(SLI)和阅读障碍， 在公立学校接受特殊教育服务的儿童占57%以上(300万儿童)。 尽管系统性红斑狼疮和阅读障碍是两种不同的疾病，但它们常常同时出现在同一个人身上。难度 学习新单词被认为是SLI的中心特征，而对于患有阅读障碍的儿童来说，词汇 阅读不足通常被视为阅读问题的副产品，而不是原因。然而，大多数研究 SLI和阅读障碍儿童的词汇学习涉及不同的群体，这可能包括 许多共病病例。我们的研究团队是第一个研究系统性红斑狼疮儿童的单词学习的人 有良好的单词阅读能力(仅限SLI)的儿童和有良好口语能力的阅读障碍儿童 (仅限阅读障碍)与同时患有SLI和阅读障碍(SLI+DYS)的儿童和患有典型阅读障碍的同龄人进行比较 发展(TD)。我们令人信服的初步结果表明，实验性单词学习 词汇量的研究和标准化测量。首先，尽管在以下方面的表现与TD同行相当 标准化的词汇量测量，只有阅读困难的儿童才有相当大的学习困难 实验性词汇学习范式中的新词。其次，仅患有SLI的儿童表现显著 比阅读困难的人更好--只是尽管得分明显低于阅读困难的人-只有 词汇量的标准化测量。我们的长期目标是更好地理解 实验性词汇学习研究和词汇量的标准化测量，并告知临床 在评估和治疗与扫盲成果有关的单词学习缺陷方面的做法。 在这个项目中，我们将测试理论驱动的、临床相关的关于单词学习的假设及其与 SLI、阅读障碍或两者(SLI+DYS)儿童与TD儿童的纵向研究结果比较 同龄人，从二年级到四年级。具体目标是：(1)检验可能解释SLI和SLI的三个理论驱动因素 阅读障碍亚组在二年级词汇学习中的差异：暴露数量、教学类型和 词汇学习的阶段；(2)确定语言、领域和家庭环境对词汇学习的贡献 解释二年级单词学习的个体差异的措施；以及(3)预测四年级的识字结果 从二年级的词汇学习测量中进行评分。这些目标填补了有关机制的理论空白。 治疗系统性红斑狼疮和阅读障碍儿童的单词学习缺陷，并解决过去的方法限制 通过考虑共病并包括精心挑选的具有不同语言的儿童群体进行的研究 和识字能力。重要的创新包括连接不同的调查路线(实验词 学习和学业成绩；SLI和阅读障碍)，对比与临床相关的理论因素 决策(剂量、教学类型、学习阶段)，并使用一个生态上有效的附带词- 反映儿童如何通过电子媒体学习单词的学习范式。 好了！

! Project Summary/Abstract Children with language-based learning disabilities, including specific language impairment (SLI) and dyslexia, comprise over 57% of children receiving special education services in public schools (> 3 million children). Although they are separate disorders, SLI and dyslexia frequently co-occur in the same individuals. Difficulty learning new words is considered a central feature of SLI, whereas for children with dyslexia, vocabulary deficits are typically viewed as a byproduct, rather than a cause, of reading problems. However, most studies of word learning in children with SLI and dyslexia have involved heterogeneous groups, which likely contain many cases of comorbidity. Our research team has been the first to study word learning in children with SLI who have good word reading skills (SLI-only) and children with dyslexia who have good oral language skills (dyslexia-only) as compared to children with both SLI and dyslexia (SLI+DYS) and peers with typical development (TD). Our convincing preliminary results suggest a paradox between experimental word learning studies and standardized measures of vocabulary size. First, despite performing comparably to TD peers on standardized measures of vocabulary size, children with dyslexia-only have considerable difficulty learning novel words in experimental word-learning paradigms. Second, children with SLI-only performed significantly better than those with dyslexia-only despite scoring significantly lower than those with dyslexia-only on standardized measures of vocabulary size. Our long-term goal is to better understand the paradox between experimental word-learning studies and standardized measures of vocabulary size and to inform clinical practice with regard to the assessment and treatment of word-learning deficits as related to literacy outcomes. In this project, we will test theory-driven, clinically relevant hypotheses about word learning and its relation to literacy outcomes in a longitudinal study of children with SLI, dyslexia or both (SLI+DYS) compared to their TD peers, from 2nd to 4th grade. Specific aims are: (1) to test three theory-driven factors that may explain SLI and dyslexia subgroup differences in word-learning at 2nd grade: quantity of exposures, type of instruction, and stages of word learning; (2) to determine the contribution of linguistic, domain-general, and home environment measures to explain individual differences in 2nd grade word learning; and (3) to predict literacy outcomes in 4th grade from measures of word learning in 2nd grade. These aims fill theoretical gaps regarding the mechanisms for word-learning deficits in children with SLI and dyslexia and address methodological limitations of past studies by considering comorbidity and including carefully selected groups of children with a range of language and literacy abilities. Important innovations include connecting disparate lines of inquiry (experimental word learning and academic outcomes; SLI and dyslexia), contrasting theoretical factors with relevance to clinical decision-making (dosage, type of instruction, learning stage), and using an ecologically valid incidental word- learning paradigm that reflects how children learn words from electronic media. !