Communication development from an intersubjective perspective: Exploring the use of a layered communication model to describe communication development in students with congenital deafblindness.

This exploratory study conducts a quantitative investigation on the communication development of students with congenital deafblindness (CDB). First, a layered communication model (LCM) is introduced, describing communicative behaviors based on three layers of intersubjective development for typically developing children (Bråten & Trevarthen, 2007). Subsequently, an analysis is made of how applicable the LCM is for children with CDB. Video recordings of four dyads of students with CDB with varying developmental ages and their teachers are coded using ten-second partial interval coding. The presence of LCM behaviors, the student and teacher contributions to communication, and the development over a half-year period are described and compared between dyads. The results reflected the developmental differences between dyads. At the primary layer, all behaviors occurred a comparable number of times between dyads, which confirms that this is a basic communication layer. Quantitative differences between dyads were encountered between and within the secondary and tertiary layers. Teacher contribution was higher for students with lower developmental ages compared to students with higher developmental ages. Also, teacher contribution was higher for the secondary and tertiary layer behaviors of the LCM compared to the primary layer behaviors. No increase was found in the behaviors over the half-year period. Results suggest that the LCM can be used to gain insight into the communication level of a dyad, hereby paving the way for intervention studies to improve communication development.

Failure to meet language milestones at two years of age is predictive of specific language impairment.

AIM: This study established predictive properties of single language milestones for specific language impairment (SLI) after the age of four, as these had not previously been reported in the literature. METHODS: In this nested case-control study, children attending special needs schools for severe speech and language difficulties were matched with children attending mainstream schools. Data covering the ages of zero to four years were retrieved from well-child care clinics and the outcomes of 23 language milestones in the Dutch Developmental Instrument were analysed. The predictive properties were expressed as positive likelihood ratios, sensitivity and specificity. RESULTS: We included 253 pairs of children with and without SLI, aged from four to 11 years. The mean age was eight years and three months, and 77% were boys. From the age of 18 months, cases and controls differed significantly on all milestones (p < 0.01). After 24 months, the language milestones had positive likelihood ratios that ranging from 6 to 108. In general, language milestones had a high specificity (range 77-100%), but the sensitivity was relatively low (range 0-68%). CONCLUSION: Failure to meet language milestones from the age of 24 months was predictive of SLI, but the use of separate milestones had limited value due to low sensitivity.

The use of subject-verb agreement and verb argument structure in monolingual and bilingual children with specific language impairment.

This study investigates the use of subject-verb agreement and verb argument structure in the spoken Dutch of monolingual Dutch children with specific language impairment (SLI) and bilingual Frisian-Dutch children with SLI. Both SLI groups appeared to be less efficient in their use of subject-verb agreement and verb argument structure than the control group (consisting of monolingual typically developing Dutch children matched on mean length of utterance in morphemes) in that they showed significantly more agreement errors as well as a relation between verb agreement structure complexity and omission, a relation that the typically developing children failed to show. Furthermore, no significant differences were found between the monolingual and the bilingual SLI group. These findings indicate that subject-verb agreement and verb argument structure are both affected in SLI, but not more severely in bilinguals than in monolinguals.