Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.53 414-429 April 2010. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0016)
© 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
Right arrowCustom Print
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 HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Poll, G. H.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, C. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Poll, G. H.
Right arrow Articles by Miller, C. A.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Articles

Identification of Clinical Markers of Specific Language Impairment in Adults

Gerard H. Poll
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park

Stacy K. Betz
University of Washington, Seattle

Carol A. Miller
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park

Contact author: Gerard H. Poll, Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, The Pennsylvania State University, 308G Ford Building, University Park, PA 16802. E-mail: ghp110{at}psu.edu.

Purpose: To investigate the usefulness of 3 tasks known to be effective diagnostic clinical markers of specific language impairment (SLI) in children: (a) nonword repetition, (b) sentence repetition, and (c) grammaticality judgments of finiteness marking.

Method: Two groups of young adults, 13 with SLI and 18 with typical language, completed 3 experimental tasks: (a) nonword repetition, (b) sentence repetition, and (c) grammaticality judgments of sentences that were either correct or contained an omitted finiteness marker, an overt agreement error, or an omitted progressive –ing. Analyses included receiver operating characteristic curve analyses and computation of likelihood ratios associated with the use of each task as a clinical marker for SLI, as well as development of a logistic regression model that used multiple tasks as predictors.

Results: Each marker task significantly contributed to classification of adults as affected or unaffected by SLI, with moderate positive and negative likelihood ratios. A combination of the 3 marker tasks was the best predictor of affectedness status with moderate to large likelihood ratios.

Conclusions: The results suggest that SLI persists into adulthood and that effective clinical markers of this disorder are similar to those used to identify SLI in children. Refinement of these tasks to increase their likelihood ratios will improve their usefulness in diagnosing SLI in adults.

KEY WORDS: specific language impairment, adults, assessment procedures


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 JSLHRHome page
C. A. Dollaghan
Taxometric Analyses of Specific Language Impairment in 6-Year-Old Children
J Speech Lang Hear Res, October 1, 2011; 54(5): 1361 - 1371.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 AJSLPHome page
L. J. Fidler, E. Plante, and R. Vance
Identification of Adults With Developmental Language Impairments
Am J Speech Lang Pathol, February 1, 2011; 20(1): 2 - 13.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]