Response to Children With Slow Expressive Language Development What Is the Forecast for School Achievement? Second Opinion
Second Opinion  |   May 01, 1996
Response to Children With Slow Expressive Language Development
 
Author Notes
Article Information
Special Populations / School-Based Settings / Language Disorders / Second Opinions
Second Opinion   |   May 01, 1996
Response to Children With Slow Expressive Language Development
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, May 1996, Vol. 5, 26-28. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0502.26
 
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, May 1996, Vol. 5, 26-28. doi:10.1044/1058-0360.0502.26
Nippold and Schwarz have provided a very thoughtful and scholarly response to my report that, I think, articulates concerns that will be in the minds of many AJSLP readers. Their basic position is that the data I have presented are not sufficient to draw the conclusions I have drawn; that is, they do not believe there is sufficient evidence to predict relatively good early school outcomes for children who present as late-talking toddlers.
Their first objection concerns the evaluation of school achievement. They take issue with my reporting scores in reading only, rather than on all areas of the PIAT. I am in the process of preparing a report that details the outcomes of children in my cohort in first and second grade in all areas tested by the PIAT. I can summarize the results of the first grade scores by saying that children with a history of SELD did not score significantly differently from peers with normal language history in any of the other PIAT subtests (mathematics, spelling, or general information). F values ranged from 0.21 to 2.38; p values ranged from 0.13 to 0.65 on the tests for group differences. Standard scores of children with SELD on these subtests averaged between 107 and 110 (SDs 12.1–16.6), well within the normal range. Similarly, scores of children with a history of SELD on the receptive quotient of the TOLD-P were not significantly different from those of peers with normal language history in either kindergarten (F = 0.14; p < 0.71) or first grade (F = 0.11; p < 0.74). Their average TOLD-P receptive quotient was 105 (SD 11.7) in kindergarten and 103 (13.8) in first grade; for children with normal language histories the average was 106 (SD 11.1) in kindergarten and 104 (11.2) in first grade. I (Paul, 1993) reported that there were no differences between the diagnostic groups in receptive scores at age 3 in my cohort, and there continue to be none at early school age.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access