Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:07:39.640Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Defining language delay in young children by cognitive referencing: Are we saying more than we know?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Kevin N. Cole ,
Philip S. Dale  and
Paulette E. Mills
Kevin N. Cole*
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Philip S. Dale
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Paulette E. Mills
Affiliation:
University of Washington
*
Kevin Cole, University of Washington, Child Development & Mental Retardation Center, Experimental Education Unit, WJ-10, Seattle WA 98195
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

One current definition of language delay, on the basis of the Cognitive Hypothesis model, assumes that children who have similar levels of language and cognitive development are unlikely to gain from specific language intervention. Children who have cognitive skills developed to a greater degree than their language skills, in contrast, are identified as appropriate candidates for specific language facilitation. In order to examine this premise, the present study compares the effects of language intervention over a 1-year period for two groups of young children with delayed language: one group with cognitive skills markedly above their language level, and the other group with similar delays in cognitive and language skills. Eighteen subjects (13 boys, 5 girls, mean age 4;11) had cognitive skills developed above their language level, and 32 subjects (20 boys, 12 girls, mean age 5;3) had similar delays in language and cognition. Evaluation measures were Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Revised (PPVT-R), MLU, Preschool Language Assessment Instrument, and Basic Language Concepts Test (BLCT). Of the four measures, only the BLCT resulted in significant gain differences favoring the students with higher cognitive than language skills. PPVT-R standard scores indicated that both groups made gains at a faster rate during intervention than prior to intervention. Clinical implications of the results are discussed.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 11 , Issue 3 , September 1990 , pp. 291 - 302
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1990

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E. (1976). Language in context. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
Blank, M., Rose, S., & Berlin, L. (1978). Preschool Language Assessment Instrument: The language of learning in practice. Orlando, FL: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
Bloom, L., & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development and language disorders. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
Chapman, R., & Miller, J. (1980). Analyzing language and communication in the child. In Schiefelbusch, R. C. (Ed.), Nonspeech, language and communication: Acquisition and intervention (pp. 159–196). Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Cromer, R. F. (1976). The cognitive hypothesis of language acquisition and its implications for child language deficiency. In Morehead, D. & Morehead, A. (Eds.), Normal and deficient child language. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Cromer, R. F. (1988). The Cognition Hypothesis revisited. In Kessel, Frank S. (Ed.), The development of language and language researchers. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Dale, P., & Cole, K. (1988). Comparison of academic and cognitive programs for young handicapped children. Exceptional Children, 54, 439–447.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Darley, F., & Spriestersbach, D. (1978). Diagnostic methods in speech pathology (2nd ed.). New York: Harper & Row.Google Scholar
Dunn, L., & Dunn, L. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.Google Scholar
Englemann, S., Ross, D., & Bingham, V. (1982). Basic Language Concepts Test. Tigard, OR: C. C. Publications.Google Scholar
Fey, M. (1986). Language intervention with young children. San Diego: College-Hill Press.Google Scholar
Gardner, H. (1983). Frames of mind. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gersten, R., Woodward, J., & Darch, C. (1986). Direct instruction: A research-based approach to curriculum design and teaching. Exceptional Children, 53, 17–31.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Gopnik, A., & Meltzoff, A. N. (1986). Relationships between semantic and cognitive development in the one-word stage: The specificity hypothesis. Child Development, 57, 1040–1053.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hresko, W., Reid, D., & Hamill, D. (1981). Test of Early Language Development. Austin: Pro-Ed.Google Scholar
Jenkins, J., Cole, K., Dale, P., & Mills, P. (1989). A longitudinal comparison of two preschool instructional models (Grant no. G008400646). Washington, DC: Department of Education, Special Education Programs.Google Scholar
Kangas, K. A., & Lloyd, L. L. (1988). Early cognitive skills as prerequisites to augmentative and laternative communication use: What are we waiting for? Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 3, 211–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemp, J. (1983). The timing of language for the pediatric population. In Miller, J., Yoder, D., & Schiefelbusch, R. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in language intervention. ASHA Reports, 12.Google Scholar
Lahey, M. (1988). Language disorders and language development. New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Leonard, L. (1983). Discussion: Part II: Defining the boundaries of language disorders in children. In Miller, J., Yoder, D., & Schiefelbusch, R. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in language intervention. ASHA Reports, 12.Google Scholar
Lyngaas, K., Nyberg, B., Hoekenga, R., & Gruenewald, L. (1983). Language intervention in the multiple contexts of the public school setting. In Miller, J., Yoder, D., & Schiefelbusch, R. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in language intervention. ASHA Reports 12.Google Scholar
McCarthy, D. (1972). McCarthy Scales of Children's Abilities. New York: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Miller, J. (1981). Assessing language production in children: Experimental procedures. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Muma, J. (1978). Language handbook: Concepts, assessment, intervention. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Owens, R. E. Jr, & House, L. I. (1984). Decision-making processes in augmentative communication. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 18–25.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rees, N. (1973). Auditory processing factors in language disorders: The view from Procrustes' bed. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 38, 304–315.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sattler, J. M. (1988). Assessment of children (3rd ed.). San Diego: Sattler.Google Scholar
Shane, H. (1981). Decision making in early augmentative communication system use. In Schiefelbusch, R. & Bricker, D. (Eds.), Early language: Acquisition and intervention (pp. 389–425). Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Siegel, G. (1983). Discussion: Part VI: Intervention context and setting. Where? In Miller, J., Yoder, D., & Scheifelbusch, R. (Eds.), Contemporary issues in language intervention. ASHA Reports 12.Google Scholar