Child Language Disorder - Research Paper Example

CHILD LANGUAGE DISORDER Introduction The use of narrative ability is among the most stimulating and environmentally justified modes of assessing the communicative ability in normal and language impaired groups (Wagner,2014). This is because narratives create the background of a majority of childhood speech development. Narratives may equally attest a good method for classifying language impaired groups that exhibit overlying symptoms but are believed to experience different levels of language impairments. Furthermore, they are regarded as good catalysts in the development of writing and reading skills(Wagner, 2014). Incidentally, there are several types of narrative discourse. These include:storytelling, event descriptions, story retelling, expository narrations, and personal narratives. The theoretical rationale reasons for investigating narratives in young children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI) will be aligned towards proving two facts. Foremost, the competence in narratives is associated with its ability in literacy development (Wagner, 2014). Second, it provides sufficient normative information that elicits clear trends in development and therefore narratives can be utilized in the comparison of children with SLI and those with typical development. In this regard, comparisons can be drawn in terms of story grammar, first mentions, vocabulary and complexity index. Evidently, past research has shown that children with SLI have elicited challenges in creating oral narratives, and in particular features of micro-structural and macro-structuralorganization (Wagner, 2014). Furthermore, several techniques of creating oral narratives, such as conversation and visual methods, have been applied with minimal consensus in regards to the most efficient in creating ideal narratives in SLI children and those with typical language development. The aim of the present research was to assess and compare the oral narrative skills between children with typical and language development and those with SLI. This was done through obtaining narrative language samples, transcribing and analyzing them. Consequently the similarities and differences were explored between children with SLI and typically developing children. In this regard, the assessment involved two children in which one had SLI and the other typical language development. The typically developed child was matched using oral narratives generated from a database of 31 unique ENNI A3 narratives produced by children with SLI. Story Grammar The assessment in relation to story grammar pertains to the frequency in inclusion of important information from the narrative. In this regard, the key units for the story grammar included initiating event, internal response, internal plan, attempt, outcome, and reaction. In this regard, the assessment on ‘initiating event’ unit was in relation to the incident that triggers the story events that stimulates a responsive action from the protagonist. The ‘internal response’ unit assessment was in relation to protagonist reaction in initiating the incidence. The ‘internal plan’ unit was in relation to the cause of action devised by the plan to respond to the initiating incidence. The ‘Attempt’ unit was in relation to the effort to achieve the goal. The ‘outcome’ unit was in relation to the resultant consequence of the effort. Finally, assessment on the’ reaction’ unit was based on the character’s perception regarding the outcome. The story grammar child for the typically developed child was significantly higher than that of the child with SLI. In this regard, the story grammar score for the typically developed child was 7 while that for the child with SLI was 4. Furthermore, the child with SLI exhibited lower content and narrative form content than the child with typical development. In this regard, in relation to form, the child with SLI exhibited a mean of 3.0 while the typical developed child exhibited a mean of 6. In relation, to content the child with SLI had a mean of 4 while the typical developed child had a mean of 7. Evidently, the story created by the typical developed child was above the expectation in terms of grammatical correctness and elaboration of content. First Mentions The assessment of First Mentions is based on the way the child introduces the characters and selected objects. In this regard, the typical developed child exhibit higher first mention scores compared to the child with SLI. In relation to the scoring, the responses in reference to the characters were assessed for adequacy. Furthermore, 6 objects in which three were derived from each set were chosen on the precinct of preliminary scoring. In addition, the specific reference of the noun used was not important. However, the central focus by the listener was on whether the response given indicated introduction of a new object. In this regard, the scoring entailed the improvising of a 3 point scale. Therefore, 3 points were given for a fully sufficient introduction of a new object or character. Examples here included a ball, an elephant etc. On the other hand, 2 points were given for an insufficient introduction of a character or object but was comprehendible to the listener. Examples here included, the ball, that elephant or the elephant. Finally, 1 point was scored a fully inconclusive and insufficient introduction of an object or character. In light of this, the score of the typical developed child is 30 while that for the SLI child is 20. Complexity Index The assessment of complexity index scoring sought to establish the measure of sentenced complexity. This was achieved through the addition of the main clause to the division of the dependent clauses by main clauses. In this regard, the complexity index scores revealed that the typically developing child exhibited a higher CI score compared to the child with SLI. Evidently, the child with typical development had a CI score of 1.25 while the child with SLI had a CI score of 1.15. Vocabulary The vocabulary assessment was done to assess the level of semantic development between the child with SLI and the typically developing child. In this regard, it was established that the child with SLI repeated non words in a less accurate manner compared to the typically developing child. Furthermore, the child with SLI exhibited difficulty in the use of verb words in comparison to noun words. The child equally exhibited a deficit in the semantic, syntactic and phonological components of words. In relation to the phonological sequence, the child with SLI exhibited difficulty in the order of new words. This is largely attributed to the limitation in phonological memory. Furthermore, the child with SLI had challenges in providing the correct label for the objects displayed. The results were equally indicative that the child with SLI had difficulty in the understanding and generation of new words following limited exposure of the narrative pictures. The semantic component in relation to word identification of the object was problematic to child with SLI due to the difficulty in the storage and recalling the content. Therefore, the child with SLI exhibited more errors in labeling when compared to the typically developing child. Evidently, the errors in labeling of the objects arose from missing or sparse representations of semantics. Consequently, the implication is that children with SLI have a decreased ability to distinguish the information of word meanings. Discussion There are various terms that have been employed in reference to children with language disorders. In this regard, the various terms include language delayed, language impaired, language disordered or specific language impairment (SLI). Evidently, most research publications prefer to use the terms specific language impairment. In this regard, the definition of a language disorder pertains to the considerable delay or postponement in the understanding or use of written or spoken language. Language disorders are normally relative to the prospects of the chronological age of the individual. In this regard, the major characteristics of children with language disorders include simple and immature sentences; limited vocabulary; difficulty in pronunciation of some speech sounds and poor comprehension of what others say to the child. The language disorders eventually exhibit short term and long term effect on the child. The short term effects may include communication, social behavior and development, peer relations, academic development, and social-emotional development. On the other hand long term effects are exhibited if the language disorder persists onto adulthood. These include communication, occupational status, academic/cognitive ability, and behavioral adjustment challenges. In relation to the expression of narratives, past research on language disorders indicates that children with language disorders normally perform poorly in comparison to typical developing children. This is more so evident when the SLI child is assessed in creating a new story on the basis of a wordless book or pictures or even retelling a story they have just been told. Evidently, the responses from the child are normally used to evaluate morphology, vocabulary, story grammar and syntax. In this regard, the results from the assessment conducted indicate a direct corroboration to past studies. Evidently, the results conclusively indicated that the typically developed child performed better than the SLI child when matched. Incidentally, the typically developed child exhibited higher scores in story, grammar, first mentions, complexity index, and vocabulary. According to Schwartz (2009) the disorder is normally evident in taxonomy or structure of language. Evidently, it is composed of three key components. These are Form, Use and Content. In relation to form, it is concerned with the morphology, phonology, and syntax. The disorder in content or meaning is in relation to the semantics of language which includes vocabulary and knowledge of events and objects. The deficits in vocabulary are normally characterized by challenges in acquisition and use of new words, representative and deictic gestures, high frequency in use of periphrases. On the other hand, the disorder component on use is concerned with the pragmatics, register and narratives. The disorder in the form of the language pertains to morphology, syntax and phonology. Evidently, the phonology part of language pertains to the governing rules of the structure, sequencing and distribution of speech sounds. On the other hand, syntax is in relation to the system of rules that govern the combination of words to produce greater coherent units of clauses, phrases and sentences. The language morphology pertains to the governing rules of word structure that are inclusive of grammatical word references possessing tense. The language semantics are in relation to the governing rules for word combinations and meaning of words. On the other hand, pragmatics largely entails the social application of language. Consequently, the consideration of any language disorder is largely dependent on difficulties or challenges with any language aspect. The classification of language disorders is based on the impaired aspect of language. In this regard, the syntax, phonology, morphology, pragmatics and or semantics aspect of language. The classification is also dependent on severity of the language disorder. In this regard, it can be classified as severe, moderate or mild. Furthermore, the classification of language disorder can be based on whether it results to an effect on comprehension. In this regard, the receptive language. It is also classified based on production and this is majorly in relation to the expressive language. Evidently, a language disorder in expressive language is signified by language creation skills that are below average in relation to the age appropriate stage (Paul, 2001). In this regard, there are evident insufficiencies in expressive language from the production and formation of language. These includes poor vocabulary skills, omissions of certain primary words, difficulties and word findings, poor skill in narratives such as storytelling, grammatical errors and difficulty in provision of information. Incidentally, these finding corroborate the findings that were established when comparing the typically developing child and child and with SLI. Evidently, disorders in expressive language can inhibit the written and oral language. Moreover, children exhibiting disorder in expressive language elicit age inappropriate language comprehension. Evidently, the findings of the research did demonstrate that the child with SLI had a lower comprehension in language despite the fact both subject were from similar the similar age set. The difficulties in receptive language are evident when there is a difficulty in language comprehension at the expected age level. In this regard, the child elicits difficulty in answering questions, comprehension of sentences and words, and following directions or commands. According to a past research by McCauley (2001), classification of children with disorders in language was done in relation to the expressive-receptive distinction. The research was conducted among a group of children. In this regard, it was established that 28% showed problems in reception while 35% exhibited problems in expression. Past research has also been done to differential children with NLI (non-specific language impairments) from children with specific language impairment (SLI). In this regard, it was established that NLI children do not exhibit performance on non verbal intelligence within the normal age parameters. As far as causes of the disorder is concerned, it has been established to have a strong genetic background as other developmental disorders. In this regard, past research has indicated that approximately 20% to 40% of children exhibiting impairments in language come from a background with one affected family member (Fabbro, 2004). Furthermore, these statistics are largely attributed to genetic factors from the family members as opposed to shared environmental factors. Evidently, much attention towards genetic factors for language disorders received significant attention after the research on the KE family during the 1990’s. Incidentally, a language disorder was among sixteen members across three generations. In this regard, the affected members were found to have gene mutation on chromosome 7. This gene mutation was known as FOXP2. Evidently, it was discovered that the gene controlled the functions of other genes and consequently affected multiple development of organs such as the brain systems that controlled language and speech learning. Moreover, it was established that many people suffering from language disorder had a permanent FOXP2 gene. However, these studies do not limit the causes of language disorders to genetics alone but also include environmental factors. According toHoodin (2011), when children with SLI are compared to typically developing children in narratives production, there are inherent structural differences. In this regard, the children with SLI generate shorter stories with characteristic simple and short sentences that may not be fully coherent. Furthermore, the children with SLI exhibit minimal scoring on the MLU (mean length utterance). In addition, they exhibit minimal thematic story elements and a great incidence of ungrammatical phrases. Furthermore, when comparing performance with normal developing children, other studies have indicated that children with SLI generate narratives that are characterized by minimal grammatical parts, minimal cohesion elements and minimal frequency of entire episodes. The children with SLI also elicit a minimal number of syntax complex sentences that are characterized with a high number of errors in grammar and minimal comprehendible phrases. Conclusion The use of narrative ability is among the most stimulating and environmentally justified modes of assessing the communicative ability in normal and language impaired groups. This is because narratives create the background of a majority of childhood speech development. Comprehensive assessment of child with SLI utilizes norm referenced objects and variant procedures to examine language from various contexts in relation to form, use and content. In this regard, narratives play a pertinent role in the assessment of specific language impairment. Evidently, the research findings have been conclusive and corroborated past findings that indicate typical developing children have better oral narrative skills when compared to children with specific language impairment. Personal reflections Topic 1. Eliciting, transcribing and analyzing the narrative sample What I already knew What I now know What I don’t know ( and would like to learn) I only knew how to record data with audio recorders. I have learnt to obtain narrative samples, transcribing and analyzing them. I would like to continue learning further techniques of analyzing narrative data. Topic 2: Children with SLI What I already knew What I now know What I don’t know (and would like to learn) I only knew language disorder in general among people. I only knew one form of narratives and that is story telling. I am now aware that SLI is a form of language disorder. I have learnt that narratives are a form of assessing language structure in SLI. I am now aware of the reason why a narrative is used in assessing children with SLI. I have learnt that there a several forms of narrative discourse used in assessing children with SLI. I would like to know further forms of language disorders in addition to SLI. I would like to learn other method used in assessing and diagnosing children with SLI. Appendices Edmonton Narratives Norms Instrument First Mentions Scoring Sheet Name: TYPICAL DEVOLOPING CHILD Age………………………………………….Date Circle the expression that best fits the child’s first mention of the character or object, using the first mentions scoring criteria and directions.If none of the descriptions fits, choose a level that seems most appropriate. A score of zero indicates that the referent was not mentioned. Referent Expression used by child for first mention Score( circle the appropriate number) Giraffe 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Elephant 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Ball 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Lifeguard 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Airplane 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Lady Elephant 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Net 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Dog 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Rabbit 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Sandcastle 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Doctor 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Balloon(first) 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Ballon Seller 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Balloon(s) (end) 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Totals of each column (3s, 2s, 1s) 24+ 4+ 2 TOTAL FIRST MENTIONS SCORE 30 Edmonton Narratives Norms Instrument First Mentions Scoring Sheet Name: CHILD WITH SLI Age………………………………………….Date Circle the expression that best fits the child’s first mention of the character or object, using the first mentions scoring criteria and directions.If none of the descriptions fits, choose a level that seems most appropriate. A score of zero indicates that the referent was not mentioned. Referent Expression used by child for first mention Score( circle the appropriate number) Giraffe 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Elephant 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Ball 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Lifeguard 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Airplane 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Lady Elephant 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Net 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Dog 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Rabbit 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Sandcastle 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Doctor 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Balloon(first) 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Ballon Seller 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Balloon(s) (end) 3/2/1/0 not mentioned Totals of each column (3s, 2s, 1s) 12+4+4= 20 TOTAL FIRST MENTIONS SCORE 20 Edmonton Narrative Norms Instrument Story Grammar Scoring Sheet for story A3 Child’s Name: TYPICAL DEVOLOPING CHILD Age:……………………………………………Date:………………………….. SG Unit Acceptable (Child only have one alternative per unit to get credit for that unit) Score Character 1 Giraffe/male/boy/(or any type of animal such as horse)(not acceptable pronoun) 0 1 Character 2 Elephant/female/girl(or any type of animal such as cow)[not pronoun] 0 1 Setting At swimming pool/going swimming/are playing has/is holding airplane/one asks other to play 0 1 Initiating Event G playing with airplane/making fly G shows/gives E his airplane 0 2 Internal Response E wants/is interested in airplane 0 1 Internal Plan E decides to take airplane 0 1 Attempt E takes airplane/zooms airplane around/makes airplane fly/G gives E a turn 0 2 Outcome Airplane falls in pool/E throws plane in pool 0 2 Reaction of Giraffe G angry/yells/stares at plane 0 1 Reaction of Elephant E feels bad/embarrassed/scared/E stare at plane/says oops 0 1 Reaction-both/unknown “they” are unhappy [code only as replacement for Reaction of Character 1 or 2; there should not be more than 2 reactions total] 0 1 Character 3 (C3) Lifeguard/other elephant/other male/her father/her brother 0 1 Initiating Event C3 shows up/comes over/E sees C3/C3 sees plane in water/C3 asks what happened 0…………………………..2 Internal Response E/G hopes C3 can help/C3 wants to help 0 1 Total score 7 Standard Score 1.25 Story Grammar Scoring Sheet for story A3 Child’s Name: CHILD WITH SLI Age:……………………………………………Date:………………………….. SG Unit Acceptable (Child only have one alternative per unit to get credit for that unit) Score Character 1 Giraffe/male/boy/(or any type of animal such as horse)(not acceptable pronoun) 0 1 Character 2 Elephant/female/girl(or any type of animal such as cow)[not pronoun] 0 1 Setting At swimming pool/going swimming/are playing has/is holding airplane/one asks other to play 0 1 Initiating Event G playing with airplane/making fly G shows/gives E his airplane 0 2 Internal Response E wants/is interested in airplane 0 1 Internal Plan E decides to take airplane 0 1 Attempt E takes airplane/zooms airplane around/makes airplane fly/G gives E a turn 0 2 Outcome Airplane falls in pool/E throws plane in pool 0 2 Reaction of Giraffe G angry/yells/stares at plane 0 1 Reaction of Elephant E feels bad/embarrassed/scared/E stare at plane/says oops 0 1 Reaction-both/unknown “they” are unhappy [code only as replacement for Reaction of Character 1 or 2; there should not be more than 2 reactions total] 0 1 Character 3 (C3) Lifeguard/other elephant/other male/her father/her brother 0 1 Initiating Event C3 shows up/comes over/E sees C3/C3 sees plane in water/C3 asks what happened 0…………………………..2 Internal Response E/G hopes C3 can help/C3 wants to help 0 1 Total score 4 Standard Score 1.15 References Wagner, S.J. (Director) (2014, September 17). Introduction to Learning Disorders. class lecture. Lecture conducted from Department of Speech, Language Pathology, Toronto. Wagner, S. J. (Director) (2014, September 24). Children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI). class lecture. Lecture conducted from Department of Speech, Language Pathology, Toronto. Wagner, S. J. (Director) (2014, October 1). children with developmental disabilities. class lecture. Lecture conducted from Department of Speech, Language Pathology, Toronto. Wagner, S. J. (Director) (2014, October 15). Children with language Disorders due to Environmental Factors. class lecture. Lecture conducted from Department of Speech, Language Pathology, Toronto. Wagner, S. J. (Director) (2014, October 29). Bases of Language Disorders: Neurobiology and Genetics. class lecture. Lecture conducted from Department of Speech, Language Pathology, Toronto. Schwartz, R. (2009). Handbook of child language disorders. New York: Psychology Press. Paul, R. (2001). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence: Assessment & intervention (2nd ed.). St. Louis: Mosby. Cantwell, D., & Baker, L. (1987). Developmental speech and language disorders. New York: Guilford Press. Hoodin, R. (2011). Intervention in child language disorders: A comprehensive handbook. Sudbury, Mass.: Jones and Bartlett. McCauley, R. (2001). Assessment of language disorders in children. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Holland, A. (1984). Language disorders in children: Recent advances. San Diego, Calif.: College-Hill Press. Fabbro, F. (2004). Neurogenic language disorders in children. Amsterdam: Elsevier. Bishop, D. (1997). Uncommon understanding: Development and disorders of language comprehension in children. Hove, East Sussex, UK: Psychology Press. Read More