Literacy promotion at the Montreal Children's Hospital.

The foundations for language and literacy are set in utero when babies hear the tone of their mother's voice (1). There is strong evidence of a positive relationship between early literacy experiences and language and academic outcomes (2). Unfortunately, many parents do not know about the benefits of reading to and with young children, and many children enter school without the basic skills needed to learn to read and succeed. Physicians who have contact with young families are in a distinctive position to promote reading, though despite its evidence base, it has not yet become a universal intervention. A short description of the projects at the Montreal Children's Hospital is provided.

Predicting writing development in dual language instructional contexts: exploring cross-linguistic relationships.

This study examined whether decoding and linguistic comprehension abilities, broadly defined by the Simple View of Reading, in grade 1 each uniquely predicted the grade 6 writing performance of English-speaking children (n = 76) who were educated bilingually in both English their first language and French, a second language. Prediction was made from (1) English to English; (2) French to French; and (3) English to French. Results showed that both decoding and linguistic comprehension scores predicted writing accuracy but rarely predicted persuasive writing. Within the linguistic comprehension cluster of tests, Formulating Sentences was a strong consistent within- and between-language predictor of writing accuracy. In practical terms, the present results indicate that early screening for later writing ability using measures of sentence formulation early in students' schooling, in their L1 or L2, can provide greatest predictive power and allow teachers to differentiate instruction in the primary grades. Theoretically, the present results argue that there are correlations between reading-related abilities and writing abilities not only within the same language but also across languages, adding to the growing body of evidence for facilitative cross-linguistic relationships between bilinguals' developing languages.

Neurological and magnetic resonance imaging findings in children with developmental language impairment.

Neurologic and radiologic findings in children with well-defined developmental language impairment have rarely been systematically assessed. Children aged 7 to 13 years with developmental language impairment or normal language (controls) underwent language, nonverbal cognitive, motor and neurological assessments, standardized assessment for subtle neurological signs, and magnetic resonance imaging. Nine children with developmental language impairment and 12 controls participated. No focal abnormalities were identified on standard neurological examination. Age and developmental language impairment were independent predictors of neurological subtle signs scores (r(2) = 0.52). Imaging abnormalities were identified in two boys with developmental language impairment and no controls (P = .17). Lesions identified were predicted neither by history nor by neurological examination. Previously unsuspected lesions were identified in almost 25% of children with developmental language impairment. Constraints regarding cooperation and sedation requirements may limit the clinical application of imaging modalities in this population.

The clinical spectrum of developmental language impairment in school-aged children: language, cognitive, and motor findings.

OBJECTIVE: Our goal was to evaluate detailed school-age language, nonverbal cognitive, and motor development in children with developmental language impairment compared with age-matched controls. METHODS: Children with developmental language impairment or normal language development (controls) aged 7 to 13 years were recruited. Children underwent language assessment (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-4, Peabody Picture Vocabulary-3, Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation-2), nonverbal cognitive assessment (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV), and motor assessment (Movement Assessment Battery for Children). Exclusion criteria were nonverbal IQ below the 5th percentile or an acquired language, hearing, autistic spectrum, or neurologic disorder. RESULTS: Eleven children with developmental language impairment (7:4 boys/girls; mean age: 10.1 +/- 0.8 years) and 12 controls (5:7 boys/girls; mean age: 9.5 +/- 1.8 years) were recruited. Children with developmental language impairment showed lower mean scores on language (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-4--developmental language impairment: 79.7 +/- 16.5; controls: 109.2 +/- 9.6; Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation-2--developmental language impairment: 94.1 +/- 10.6; controls: 104.0 +/- 2.8; Peabody Picture Vocabulary-3--developmental language impairment: 90.5 +/- 13.8; controls: 100.1 +/- 11.6), cognitive (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV--developmental language impairment: 99.5 +/- 15.5; controls: 113.5 +/- 11.9), and motor measures (Movement Assessment Battery for Children percentile--developmental language impairment: 12.7 +/- 16.7; controls: 66.1 +/- 30.6) and greater discrepancies between cognitive and language scores (Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-IV/Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals-4--developmental language impairment: 17.8 +/- 17.8; controls: 1.2 +/- 12.7). Motor impairment was more common in children with developmental language impairment (70%) than controls (8%). CONCLUSIONS: Developmental language impairment is characterized by a broad spectrum of developmental impairments. Children identified on the basis of language impairment show significant motor comorbidity. Motor assessment should form part of the evaluation and follow-up of children with developmental language impairment.