JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.49 88-101 February 2006. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/007)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Conti-Ramsden, G.
Right arrow Articles by Pickles, A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Conti-Ramsden, G.
Right arrow Articles by Pickles, A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Estimating Familial Loading in SLI: A Comparison of Direct Assessment Versus Parental Interview

Gina Conti-Ramsden
Zoë Simkin
Andrew Pickles
The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom

Contact author: Gina Conti-Ramsden, Human Communication and Deafness, School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Humanities Devas Street Building, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, United Kingdom. Email: gina.conti-ramsden{at}manchester.ac.uk

PURPOSE: Two approaches commonly used for estimating prevalence of language disorders in families were compared. The 1st involved examining a subset of language items from an investigator-based interview used to record parental information on the language and literacy difficulties in relatives. The 2nd was the direct assessment of ability in immediate family using a battery of standardized verbal ability, language, and literacy assessments.

METHOD: Using these 2 methods, the prevalence of language and literacy disorders was investigated in the immediate family (n = 271) of 93 children with a history of SLI (mean age 13;11 years).

RESULTS: The overall proportion of relatives with reported language or literacy difficulty was similar for both methods (34.5% for reported difficulties compared with 35% on direct assessment). The present study further explored maternal, paternal, and sibling prevalence rates and strength of agreement between parental interview and direct assessment. When a low cutoff score was used, good agreement (of true negatives and true positives) for reading and spelling difficulties and expressive language between the 2 types of case identification method was found.

CONCLUSIONS: Parents can be effective identifiers when the impairment is severe (below 2 SDs from the population mean). Poor agreement was observed between report and assessment of receptive language difficulties.

KEY WORDS: specific language impairment (SLI), prevalence rates, direct assessment, parental interview


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 2006 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.