In a class or group of twenty children, - statistically - one child has a developmental language disorder (DLD). For children with DLD it is very difficult to keep up at school. The problems in the language also easily lead to miscommunication, which can cause behavioral problems. The timely recognition of a DLD is of great importance for early treatment. This way you can prevent or reduce problems at school, at home and in the children's leisure time. At the moment, children with DLD are not always identified early.Problems in language development can be identified early, for example at the age of two by child health workers. Parents, kindergarten teachers and elementary school teachers can also identify problems in children's language development. This requires a language screening instrument that can easily determine whether a child's language is 'at risk' or 'not at risk'. Early identification of language problems is important, but until today children are still missed. In this dissertation I present a new instrument for the identification of problems in the language development of children from one to six years old, the Early Language Scale (ELS). I also describe the development of the milestones in the language development of children, how good the current screening at the age of two at the health care office is and what parents think of this language screening. The ELS appears to detect DLD in young children well and can therefore make an important contribution to the detection of these problems at the primary health care.
Purpose: Most speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working with children with developmental language disorder (DLD) do not perform language sample analysis (LSA) on a regular basis, although they do regard LSA as highly informative for goal setting and evaluating grammatical therapy. The primary aim of this study was to identify facilitators, barriers, and needs related to performing LSA by Dutch SLPs working with children with DLD. The secondary aim was to investigate whether a training would change the actual performance of LSA. Method: A focus group with 11 SLPs working in Dutch speech-language pathology practices was conducted. Barriers, facilitators, and needs were identified using thematic analysis and categorized using the theoretical domain framework. To address the barriers, a training was developed using software program CLAN. Changes in barriers and use of LSA were evaluated with a survey sent to participants before, directly after, and 3 months posttraining. Results: The barriers reported in the focus group were SLPs’ lack of knowledge and skills, time investment, negative beliefs about their capabilities, differences in beliefs about their professional role, and no reimbursement from health insurance companies. Posttraining survey results revealed that LSA was not performed more often in daily practice. Using CLAN was not the solution according to participating SLPs. Time investment remained a huge barrier. Conclusions: A training in performing LSA did not resolve the time investment barrier experienced by SLPs. User-friendly software, developed in codesign with SLPs might provide a solution. For the short-term, shorter samples, preferably from narrative tasks, should be considered.
Purpose: This article summarizes the shared principles and evidence underpinning methods employed in the three sentence-level (syntactic) grammatical intervention approaches developed by the authors. We discuss associated clinical resources and map a way forward for clinically useful research in this area. Method: We provide an overview of the principles and perspectives that are common across our three syntactic intervention approaches: MetaTaal (Zwitserlood, 2015; Zwitserlood, Wijnen, et al., 2015), the SHAPE CODING™ system (Ebbels, 2007; Ebbels et al., 2014, 2007), and Complex Sentence Intervention (Balthazar & Scott, 2017, 2018). A description of each approach provides examples and summarizes current evidence supporting effectiveness for children with developmental language disorder ranging in age from 5 to 16 years. We suggest promising directions for future research that will advance our understanding of effective practices and support more widespread adoption of syntactic interventions with school-age children. Conclusion: In each approach to syntactic intervention, careful and detailed analysis of grammatical knowledge is used to support target selection. Intervention targets are explicitly described and presented systematically using multimodal representations within engaging and functional activities. Treatment stimuli are varied within a target pattern in order to maximize learning. Similar intervention intervals and intensities have been studied and proven clinically feasible and have produced measurable effects. We identify a need for more research evidence to maximize the effectiveness of our grammatical interventions, encompassing languages other than English, as well as practical clinical tools to guide target selection, measurement of outcomes, and decisions about how to tailor interventions to individual needs.
LINK
