Inviting an author to review:
Find an author and click ‘Invite to review selected article’ near their name.
Search for authorsSearch for similar articles
4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Retrieval Practice and Word Learning by Children With Developmental Language Disorder: Does Expanding Retrieval Provide Additional Benefit?

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Purpose:

          The word learning of preschool-age children with developmental language disorder (DLD) is improved when spaced retrieval practice is incorporated into the learning sessions. In this preregistered study, we compared two types of spacing—an expanding retrieval practice schedule and an equally spaced schedule—to determine if one of these approaches yields better word learning outcomes for the children.

          Method:

          Fourteen children with DLD aged 4–5 years and 14 same-age children with typical language development (TD) learned eight novel nouns over two sessions. Spacing for half of the novel words was expanded gradually during learning; for the remaining novel words, greater spacing remained at the same level throughout learning. Immediately after the second session and 1 week later, the children's recall of the words was tested.

          Results:

          The children with TD recalled more novel words than the children with DLD, although this difference could be accounted for by differences in the children's standardized receptive vocabulary test scores. The two groups were similar in their ability to retain the words over 1 week. Initially, the shorter spacing in the expanding schedule resulted in greater retrieval success than the corresponding (longer spaced) retrieval trials in the equally spaced schedule. These early shorter spaced trials also seemed to benefit retrieval of the trials with greater spacing that immediately followed. However, as the learning period progressed, the accuracy levels for the two conditions converged and were likewise similar during final testing.

          Conclusion:

          We need a greater understanding of how and when short spacing can be helpful to children's word learning, with the recognition that early gains might give a misleading picture of the benefits that short spacing can provide to longer term retention.

          Related collections

          Most cited references60

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Test-enhanced learning: taking memory tests improves long-term retention.

          Taking a memory test not only assesses what one knows, but also enhances later retention, a phenomenon known as the testing effect. We studied this effect with educationally relevant materials and investigated whether testing facilitates learning only because tests offer an opportunity to restudy material. In two experiments, students studied prose passages and took one or three immediate free-recall tests, without feedback, or restudied the material the same number of times as the students who received tests. Students then took a final retention test 5 min, 2 days, or 1 week later. When the final test was given after 5 min, repeated studying improved recall relative to repeated testing. However, on the delayed tests, prior testing produced substantially greater retention than studying, even though repeated studying increased students' confidence in their ability to remember the material. Testing is a powerful means of improving learning, not just assessing it.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology

            Background Lack of agreement about criteria and terminology for children's language problems affects access to services as well as hindering research and practice. We report the second phase of a study using an online Delphi method to address these issues. In the first phase, we focused on criteria for language disorder. Here we consider terminology. Methods The Delphi method is an iterative process in which an initial set of statements is rated by a panel of experts, who then have the opportunity to view anonymised ratings from other panel members. On this basis they can either revise their views or make a case for their position. The statements are then revised based on panel feedback, and again rated by and commented on by the panel. In this study, feedback from a second round was used to prepare a final set of statements in narrative form. The panel included 57 individuals representing a range of professions and nationalities. Results We achieved at least 78% agreement for 19 of 21 statements within two rounds of ratings. These were collapsed into 12 statements for the final consensus reported here. The term ‘Language Disorder’ is recommended to refer to a profile of difficulties that causes functional impairment in everyday life and is associated with poor prognosis. The term, ‘Developmental Language Disorder’ (DLD) was endorsed for use when the language disorder was not associated with a known biomedical aetiology. It was also agreed that (a) presence of risk factors (neurobiological or environmental) does not preclude a diagnosis of DLD, (b) DLD can co‐occur with other neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g. ADHD) and (c) DLD does not require a mismatch between verbal and nonverbal ability. Conclusions This Delphi exercise highlights reasons for disagreements about terminology for language disorders and proposes standard definitions and nomenclature.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              The impact of nonverbal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder: evidence from a population study

              Background Diagnosis of ‘specific’ language impairment traditionally required nonverbal IQ to be within normal limits, often resulting in restricted access to clinical services for children with lower NVIQ. Changes to DSM‐5 criteria for language disorder removed this NVIQ requirement. This study sought to delineate the impact of varying NVIQ criteria on prevalence, clinical presentation and functional impact of language disorder in the first UK population study of language impairment at school entry. Methods A population‐based survey design with sample weighting procedures was used to estimate population prevalence. We surveyed state‐maintained reception classrooms (n = 161 or 61% of eligible schools) in Surrey, England. From a total population of 12,398 children (ages 4–5 years), 7,267 (59%) were screened. A stratified subsample (n = 529) received comprehensive assessment of language, NVIQ, social, emotional and behavioural problems, and academic attainment. Results The total population prevalence estimate of language disorder was 9.92% (95% CI 7.38, 13.20). The prevalence of language disorder of unknown origin was estimated to be 7.58% (95% CI 5.33, 10.66), while the prevalence of language impairment associated with intellectual disability and/or existing medical diagnosis was 2.34% (95% CI 1.40, 3.91). Children with language disorder displayed elevated symptoms of social, emotional and behavioural problems relative to peers, F(1, 466) = 7.88, p = .05, and 88% did not make expected academic progress. There were no differences between those with average and low‐average NVIQ scores in severity of language deficit, social, emotional and behavioural problems, or educational attainment. In contrast, children with language impairments associated with known medical diagnosis and/or intellectual disability displayed more severe deficits on multiple measures. Conclusions At school entry, approximately two children in every class of 30 pupils will experience language disorder severe enough to hinder academic progress. Access to specialist clinical services should not depend on NVIQ.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Journal
                J Speech Lang Hear Res
                J Speech Lang Hear Res
                JSLHR
                Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research : JSLHR
                American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
                1092-4388
                1558-9102
                May 2024
                09 April 2024
                1 November 2024
                : 67
                : 5
                : 1530-1547
                Affiliations
                [a ]Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
                [b ]Department of Human Development and Family Science, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
                [c ]Department of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN
                Author notes

                Disclosure: The authors have declared that no competing financial or nonfinancial interests existed at the time of publication.

                Correspondence to Laurence B. Leonard: xdxl@ 123456purdue.edu

                Editor-in-Chief: Julie A. Washington

                Editor: Mahchid Namazi

                Author information
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9189-4438
                https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1619-5274
                Article
                23814764000300140072
                10.1044/2024_JSLHR-23-00528
                11087082
                38592972
                420adc9f-2269-4b86-a774-99db805b8eff
                Copyright © 2024 The Authors

                This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

                History
                : 30 August 2023
                : 12 December 2023
                : 12 February 2024
                Page count
                Pages: 18
                Funding
                This research was supported by funding from the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders Grant R01 DC014708 (awarded to Laurence B. Leonard). The authors thank the children and their families for participating in this research and the research assistants in the Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences Child Language Lab for their assistance.
                Categories
                research-article, Research Article
                Language
                Research Articles

                Comments

                Comment on this article

                scite_
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Smart Citations
                0
                0
                0
                0
                Citing PublicationsSupportingMentioningContrasting
                View Citations

                See how this article has been cited at scite.ai

                scite shows how a scientific paper has been cited by providing the context of the citation, a classification describing whether it supports, mentions, or contrasts the cited claim, and a label indicating in which section the citation was made.

                Similar content31

                Cited by1

                Most referenced authors405