BACKGROUND: Differentiating mild cognitive impairment (MCI) from dementia is important, as treatment options differ. There are few short (<5 min) but accurate screening tools that discriminate between MCI, normal cognition (NC) and dementia, in the Dutch language. The Quick Mild Cognitive Impairment (Qmci) screen is sensitive and specific in differentiating MCI from NC and mild dementia. Given this, we adapted the Qmci for use in Dutch-language countries and validated the Dutch version, the Qmci-D, against the Dutch translation of the Standardised Mini-Mental State Examination (SMMSE-D).METHOD: The Qmci was translated into Dutch with a combined qualitative and quantitative approach. In all, 90 participants were recruited from a hospital geriatric clinic (25 with dementia, 30 with MCI, 35 with NC). The Qmci-D and SMMSE-D were administered sequentially but randomly by the same trained rater, blind to the diagnosis.RESULTS: The Qmci-D was more sensitive than the SMMSE-D in discriminating MCI from dementia, with a significant difference in the area under the curve (AUC), 0.73 compared to 0.60 (p = 0.024), respectively, and in discriminating dementia from NC, with an AUC of 0.95 compared to 0.89 (p = 0.006). Both screening instruments discriminated MCI from NC with an AUC of 0.86 (Qmci-D) and 0.84 (SMMSE-D).CONCLUSION: The Qmci-D shows similar,(good) accuracy as the SMMSE-D in separating NC from MCI; greater,(albeit fair), accuracy differentiating MCI from dementia, and significantly greater accuracy in separating dementia from NC. Given its brevity and ease of administration, the Qmci-D seems a useful cognitive screen in a Dutch population. Further study with a suitably powered sample against more sensitive screens is now required.
This longitudinal study compared the development of oral language and more specifically narrative skills (storytelling and story retelling) in children with specific language impairment (SLI) with and without literacy delay. Therefore, 18 children with SLI and 18 matched controls with normal literacy were followed from the last year of kindergarten (mean age = 5 years 5 months) until the beginning of grade 3 (mean age = 8 years 1 month). Oral language tests measuring vocabulary, morphology, sentence and text comprehension and narrative skills were administered yearly. Based on first and third grade reading and spelling achievement, both groups were divided into a group with and a group without literacy problems. Results showed that the children with SLI and literacy delay had persistent oral language problems across all assessed language domains. The children with SLI and normal literacy skills scored also persistently low on vocabulary, morphology and story retelling skills. Only on listening comprehension and storytelling, they evolved towards the level of the control group. In conclusion, oral language skills in children with SLI and normal literacy skills remained in general poor, despite their intact literacy development during the first years of literacy instruction. Only for listening comprehension and storytelling, they improved, probably as a result of more print exposure.
A common early intervention approach for preschool children with language problems is parent–child interaction therapy (PCIT). PCIT has positive effects for children with expressive language problems. It appears that speech and language therapists (SLTs) conduct this therapy in many different ways. This might be because of the variety of approaches available, the diverse set of families SLTs work with or the different organizational structures. Understanding the critical components of PCIT would enable SLTs to map the variations that are implemented and researchers to evaluate the effects of such variation. This study aimed to identify the potentially critical components of PCIT based on the practical experience of SLTs and to identify SLTs’ rationales for the way they structure PCIT. Both parameters are important for the long term goal, that is, to develop a framework that can be used to support practice. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 10 SLTs who had at least one year experience in delivering PCIT with preschool children with language impairment. The interviews were transcribed and analysed, using thematic analysis. Analysis of the SLT interview data identified four potentially critical components that underpin the teaching of strategies to parents: parents’ engagement, parents’ understanding, parents’ reflection and therapists’ skills. SLTs suggested that all four components are needed for the successful delivery of PCIT. The reasons that SLTs give for the way in which they structure PCIT are mainly based on organizational constraints, family needs and practicalities. SLTs consider PCIT to be valuable but challenging to implement. A framework that makes explicit these components may be beneficial to support practice.
LINK
Everyone has the right to participate in society to the best of their ability. This right also applies to people with a visual impairment, in combination with a severe or profound intellectual and possibly motor disability (VISPIMD). However, due to their limitations, for their participation these people are often highly dependent on those around them, such as family members andhealthcare professionals. They determine how people with VISPIMD participate and to what extent. To optimize this support, they must have a good understanding of what people with disabilities can still do with their remaining vision.It is currently difficult to gain insight into the visual abilities of people with disabilities, especially those with VISPIMD. As a professional said, "Everything we can think of or develop to assess the functional vision of this vulnerable group will help improve our understanding and thus our ability to support them. Now, we are more or less guessing about what they can see.Moreover, what little we know about their vision is hard to communicate to other professionals”. Therefore, there is a need for methods that can provide insight into the functional vision of people with VISPIMD, in order to predict their options in daily life situations. This is crucial knowledge to ensure that these people can participate in society to their fullest extent.What makes it so difficult to get this insight at the moment? Visual impairments can be caused by a range of eye or brain disorders and can manifest in various ways. While we understand fairly well how low vision affects a person's abilities on relatively simple visual tasks, it is much more difficult to predict this in more complex dynamic everyday situations such asfinding your way or moving around during daily activities. This is because, among other things, conventional ophthalmic tests provide little information about what people can do with their remaining vision in everyday life (i.e., their functional vision).An additional problem in assessing vision in people with intellectual disabilities is that many conventional tests are difficult to perform or are too fatiguing, resulting in either no or the wrong information. In addition to their visual impairment, there is also a very serious intellectual disability (possibly combined with a motor impairment), which makes it even more complex to assesstheir functional vision. Due to the interplay between their visual, intellectual, and motor disabilities, it is almost impossible to determine whether persons are unable to perform an activity because they do not see it, do not notice it, do not understand it, cannot communicate about it, or are not able to move their head towards the stimulus due to motor disabilities.Although an expert professional can make a reasonable estimate of the functional possibilities through long-term and careful observation, the time and correct measurement data are usually lacking to find out the required information. So far, it is insufficiently clear what people with VZEVMB provoke to see and what they see exactly.Our goal with this project is to improve the understanding of the visual capabilities of people with VISPIMD. This then makes it possible to also improve the support for participation of the target group. We want to achieve this goal by developing and, in pilot form, testing a new combination of measurement and analysis methods - primarily based on eye movement registration -to determine the functional vision of people with VISPIMD. Our goal is to systematically determine what someone is responding to (“what”), where it may be (“where”), and how much time that response will take (“when”). When developing methods, we take the possibilities and preferences of the person in question as a starting point in relation to the technological possibilities.Because existing technological methods were originally developed for a different purpose, this partly requires adaptation to the possibilities of the target group.The concrete end product of our pilot will be a manual with an overview of available technological methods (as well as the methods themselves) for assessing functional vision, linked to the specific characteristics of the target group in the cognitive, motor area: 'Given that a client has this (estimated) combination of limitations (cognitive, motor and attention, time in whichsomeone can concentrate), the order of assessments is as follows:' followed by a description of the methods. We will also report on our findings in a workshop for professionals, a Dutch-language article and at least two scientific articles. This project is executed in the line: “I am seen; with all my strengths and limitations”. During the project, we closely collaborate with relevant stakeholders, i.e. the professionals with specific expertise working with the target group, family members of the persons with VISPIMD, and persons experiencing a visual impairment (‘experience experts’).
