Genetic outcomes in children with developmental language disorder: a systematic review.

Introduction: Developmental language disorder (DLD) is a common childhood condition negatively influencing communication and psychosocial development. An increasing number of pathogenic variants or chromosomal anomalies possibly related to DLD have been identified. To provide a base for accurate clinical genetic diagnostic work-up for DLD patients, understanding the specific genetic background is crucial. This study aims to give a systematic literature overview of pathogenic variants or chromosomal anomalies causative for DLD in children. Methods: We conducted a systematic search in PubMed and Embase on available literature related to the genetic background of diagnosed DLD in children. Included papers were critically appraised before data extraction. An additional search in OMIM was performed to see if the described DLD genes are associated with a broader clinical spectrum. Results: The search resulted in 15,842 papers. After assessing eligibility, 47 studies remained, of which 25 studies related to sex chromosome aneuploidies and 15 papers concerned other chromosomal anomalies (SCAs) and/or Copy Number Variants (CNVs), including del15q13.1-13.3 and del16p11.2. The remaining 7 studies displayed a variety of gene variants. 45 (candidate) genes related to language development, including FOXP2, GRIN2A, ERC1, and ATP2C2. After an additional search in the OMIM database, 22 of these genes were associated with a genetic disorder with a broader clinical spectrum, including intellectual disability, epilepsy, and/or autism. Conclusion: Our study illustrates that DLD can be related to SCAs and specific CNV's. The reported (candidate) genes (n = 45) in the latter category reflect the genetic heterogeneity and support DLD without any comorbidities and syndromic language disorder have an overlapping genetic etiology.

Identifying Relevant Concepts for the Development of a Communicative Participation Item Bank for Children and Adolescents: A Systematic Review of Existing Instruments.

PURPOSE: This study aims to systematically identify items that measure communicative participation from measurement instruments that measure (aspects of) communication and/or participation in children and adolescents (5-18 years old) with communication disorders, for developing an item bank. METHOD: A systematic literature search was performed in MEDLINE and Embase to search for patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) or parent reports measuring aspects of communication and/or participation in children and adolescents. The individual items of the included measurement instruments were reviewed on whether they measure communicative participation. The items were then classified into one of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) for Children and Youth (World Health Organization, 2007) domains of activities and participation. RESULTS: A total of 29 instruments were found, nine PROMs and 20 parent reports. One hundred forty-five items were identified that measure communicative participation. From these 145 items, 74 were retrieved from PROMs (51%), and 71 were retrieved from parent reports (49%). The majority of items were classified in ICF Domain 7, interpersonal interactions and relationships (73.8%), followed by Domain 8, major life areas (13.8%), and Domain 9, community, social, and civic life (8.3%). Only a few items were found in Domains 5 and 6, and none was found in Domains 1, 2, and 4. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 145 items potentially useful for developing an item bank addressing communicative participation in children and adolescents with communication disorders. However, item development in collaboration with the target population is needed to ensure that these items fully reflect the construct.

Collaborative working in speech and language therapy for children with DLD-What are parents' needs?

BACKGROUND: Collaborative practice between therapists and parents is a key element of family-centred care and is essential if we want to address family priorities and needs in interventions. However, collaborative practice is challenging for speech and language therapists (SLTs) and parents. To facilitate collaboration, collaborative practices need to be implemented into speech and language therapy for young children with developmental language disorders (DLD) and their families. Actual change and implementation of collaboration in practice will be successful only when it corresponds with patients' needs, in our case the needs of parents of young children with DLD. AIMS: To explore parents' needs in their collaboration with SLTs during therapy for their young child with DLD. METHODS & PROCEDURES: Parents of children with (a risk of) DLD in the age of 2-6 years were eligible for participation. We recruited parents via SLTs. Twelve parents of children with DLD participated in semi-structured interviews about their needs in collaboration with SLTs. We used a phenomenological approach focusing on parents' lived experiences. We transcribed the interviews verbatim. All interviews were read/listened to and discussed by our parent panel, multiple researchers and the interviewer. Two researchers independently analysed the data using the reflective thematic analysis of Braun and Clarke. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: The analysis of the interviews resulted in six themes: (1) knowing what to expect, (2) knowing how to contribute, (3) feeling capable of supporting the child, (4) trusting the therapist, (5) alignment with parents and children's needs, preferences and priorities and (6) time and space for asking questions and sharing information. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Parents want SLTs to invest time in collaborating with them. Parents need SLTs to empower them to become a collaborative partner and enable them to support their child in daily life. Parents need knowledge about the therapy process and diagnosis and skills in how to support their child's language development. Also, they need emotional support to feel secure enough to support their child, to ask questions to therapists and to bring up their own thoughts and opinions in therapy. Parents' needs are in line with collaborative working as described in literature, which underlines the importance of implementing collaborative working in speech and language therapy for young children with DLD. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Several reviews have explored parents' perspectives on speech and language therapy. Results reveal parents' experiences with speech and language therapy in general, and parents' perspectives on specific topics such as shared decision-making and parents/therapists roles in therapy. What this study adds This study adds insights into parents' needs to ensure collaboration with speech and language therapists (SLTs). Parents of young children with developmental language disorders (DLD) need SLTs to invest time to create optimal collaboration. It is important for parents to have enough knowledge about DLD and the SLT process, skills and confidence in how to support their child and opportunities to share thoughts and questions with SLTs. Our results underline the importance of parents being empowered by SLTs to become a collaborative partner. What are the clinical implications of this work? When children are referred to speech and language therapy, parents often venture into an unknown journey. They need support from SLTs to become a collaborative partner in speech and language therapy. Parents need SLTs to invest time in sharing knowledge, skills and power and align therapy to parents' and child's needs, preferences, priorities and expectations.

Collaboration: How does it work according to therapists and parents of young children? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Collaboration between therapists and parents of children with developmental disabilities is a key element of family-centred care. In practice, collaboration appears to be challenging for both parents and therapists. This systematic review aims to make explicit how therapists can optimise their collaboration with parents of young children with developmental disabilities, according to the perspectives of parents and therapists. METHODS: A systematic review was conducted using the following databases: Medline (PubMed), CINAHL (OVID) and PsychINFO (OVID). Those papers were selected, which focused on collaboration using a two-way interaction between therapists and parents, exploring the perspectives of therapists and/or parents of children between 2 and 6 years. Papers needed to be published in English or Dutch between 1998 and July 2021. Included papers were synthesised using a qualitative analysis approach by two researchers independently. Results sections were analysed line-by-line, and codes were formulated and discussed by all authors. Codes were aggregated, resulting in a synthesis of specific collaboration strategies in combined strategy clusters. RESULTS: The search generated 3439 records. In total, 24 papers were selected. Data synthesis resulted in an overview of specific strategies organised into five clusters: (1) continuously invest time in your collaboration with parents, (2) be aware of your important role in the collaboration with parents, (3) tailor your approach, (4) get to know the family and (5) empower parents to become a collaborative partner. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review resulted in an overview of concrete strategies for therapists to use in their collaboration with parents of children with developmental disabilities. The strategies formulated enable therapists to consciously decide how to optimise their collaboration with each individual parent. Making these strategies explicit facilitates change of practice from therapist-led and child-centred towards family-centred care.

Communication in Daily Life of Children With Developmental Language Disorder: Parents' and Teachers' Perspectives.

PURPOSE: This study explores limitations in communication in daily life of children with developmental language disorder (DLD) from their parents' perspective as well as communicative abilities and social functioning in the classroom from their teacher's perspective. Furthermore, differences between children with mixed receptive-expressive disorder and children with expressive-only disorder in communication in daily life and social functioning are studied. METHOD: Data were collected through questionnaires completed by parents and teachers of children (5-6 years old) who attended schools for special education for DLD. Language test scores were retrieved from school records. Parents of 60 children answered open-ended questions about situations and circumstances in which their child was most troubled by language difficulties. Teachers of 83 children rated communicative abilities, social competence, and student-teacher relationship. RESULTS: Parents reported communication with strangers as most troublesome and mentioned the influence of the mental state of their child. Parents considered limitations in expressing oneself and being understood and not being intelligible as core difficulties. Teachers rated the children's communicative abilities in the school context as inadequate, but their scores concerning social competence and the quality of teacher-child relationships fell within the normal range. Children with receptive-expressive disorder experienced limitations in communication in almost all situations, whereas those with expressive disorder faced limitations in specific situations. Children with receptive-expressive disorder were also significantly more limited in their communicative abilities and social competence at school than children with expressive disorder. No differences were found between the two groups in the quality of the teacher-child relationship. CONCLUSIONS: The results confirm that children with DLD face significant challenges in a variety of communicative situations. We found indications that children with receptive-expressive disorder experience more severe limitations than children with expressive disorder. The involvement of parents and teachers in evaluating a child's communicative ability provides valuable and clinically relevant information.

Nonverbal Executive Functioning in Relation to Vocabulary and Morphosyntax in Preschool Children With and Without Developmental Language Disorder.

PURPOSE: Developmental language disorder (DLD) is characterized by persistent and unexplained difficulties in language development. Accumulating evidence shows that children with DLD also present with deficits in other cognitive domains, such as executive functioning (EF). There is an ongoing debate on whether exclusively verbal EF abilities are impaired in children with DLD or whether nonverbal EF is also impaired, and whether these EF impairments are related to their language difficulties. The aims of this study were to (a) compare nonverbal performance of preschoolers with DLD and typically developing (TD) peers, (b) examine how nonverbal EF and language abilities are related, and (c) investigate whether a diagnosis of DLD moderates the relationship between EF and language abilities. METHOD: A total of 143 children (nDLD = 65, nTD = 78) participated. All children were between 3 and 6.5 years old and were monolingual Dutch. We assessed nonverbal EF with a visual selective attention task, a visuospatial short-term and working memory task, and a task gauging broad EF abilities. Vocabulary and morphosyntax were each measured with two standardized language tests. We created latent variables for EF, vocabulary, and morphosyntax. RESULTS: Analyses showed that children with DLD were outperformed by their TD peers on all nonverbal EF tasks. Nonverbal EF abilities were related to morphosyntactic abilities in both groups, whereas a relationship between vocabulary and EF skills was found in the TD group only. These relationships were not significantly moderated by a diagnosis of DLD. CONCLUSIONS: We found evidence for nonverbal EF impairments in preschool children with DLD. Moreover, nonverbal EF and morphosyntactic abilities were significantly related in these children. These findings may have implications for intervention and support the improvement of prognostic accuracy. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.24121287.

Behaviors related to autism spectrum disorder in children with developmental language disorder and children with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome.

Background and Aim: Children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) are at an increased risk to develop behaviors associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD). The relationship between early language difficulties and the occurrence of ASD-related behaviors in DLD is poorly understood. One factor that may hinder progress in understanding this relationship is the etiological heterogeneity of DLD. We therefore study this relationship in an etiologically homogeneous group of children, who share phenotypic characteristics with children with DLD: children with the 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome (22q11DS). We compare children with 22q11DS, to children with DLD and age-matched typically developing children (TD). Method: 44 children with 22q11DS, 65 children with DLD and 81 TD children, between 3.0-6.5 years old, participated in a longitudinal cohort study that included a baseline measure and a follow-up measure with a 1-year interval. A parental questionnaire (SRS-2) was used to measure the incidence of behaviors in two key behavioral domains associated with ASD: Social Communication and Interaction and Restricted Repetitive Behaviors and Interests. At baseline, we assessed children's expressive and receptive language abilities as well as their intellectual functioning with standardized tests. We compared the distribution of ASD-related behaviors between the three groups. We used regression analyses to investigate whether language abilities at baseline predict ASD-related behavior at follow-up, accounting for ASD-related behavior at baseline, demographic variables and intellectual functioning. Results: Both the children with 22q11DS and the children with DLD displayed significantly more ASD-related behaviors than the TD children. Over 30% of children in both clinical groups had scores exceeding the subclinical threshold for ASD in both behavioral domains. Both in 22q11DS and DLD, baseline receptive language scores were negatively correlated with ASD-related behaviors 1 year later, when controlling for baseline SRS-scores. However, this association was statistically significant only in children with 22q11DS, even when controlled for IQ-scores, and it was significantly stronger as than in the TD group. The strength of the association did not differ significantly between 22q11DS and DLD. Conclusion: Both children with 22q11DS and children with DLD present with elevated rates of ASD-related behaviors at a preschool-age. Only in children with 22q11DS we observed that weaker receptive language skills were related to increased behavioral problems in the domain of social communication and interaction one year later. Implications: Our findings indicate that relations between early language impairment and other behavioral phenotypes may be more feasible to detect in a subgroup of children with a homogeneous etiology, than in a group of children with a heterogeneous etiology (such as children with DLD). Our results in 22q11DS reveal that receptive language is especially important in predicting the occurrence of ASD-related behaviors. Future research is needed to determine to what extent receptive language predicts the occurrence of ASD-related behaviors in children with DLD, especially among those children with DLD with the weakest receptive language. Clinically, screening for ASD-related behaviors in children with developmental language difficulties is recommended from a young age, especially among children with receptive language difficulties.

Further development in measuring communicative participation: identifying items to extend the applicability of the communicative participation item bank.

BACKGROUND: The ability to communicate is a prerequisite for participation in today's society. To measure participation in adults with communication disorders, the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB) was developed in 2006. Since then, several new PROMs have been developed to measure communication and the impact of communication disorders on participation. Moreover, the CPIB items do not all appear to be relevant to certain populations with communication problems and context of communicative participation is changing rapidly, given the increased use of digital communication forms. The purpose of this study was to identify new PROMs developed since 2006 that aim to measure (aspects of) communication, in order to select items that are suitable for expanding the Communicative Participation Item Bank to make the item bank more widely applicable (e.g., to the hearing-impaired population) and tailored to the current societal context. METHODS: Medline and Embase were used to search for PROMs that aim to measure (aspects of) communication. Each new PROM as well as the CPIB, was evaluated to determine to what extent it contains items that measure communicative participation and to what extent these items capture all communicative participation domains by linking each item to the ICF Activities and Participation domains. RESULTS: This study identified 31 new PROMs, containing 391 items that were labelled as measuring communicative participation. The majority of the 391 items measure aspects of ICF Activities and Participation domain 'communication', followed by the domain 'interpersonal interactions and relationships'. The other ICF Activity and Participation domains were less often addressed. Analysis of the CPIB showed that items do not cover all domains of participation as defined in the ICF, such as the 'major life areas' domain. CONCLUSIONS: We found a potential pool of 391 items measuring communicative participation that could be considered for extending the CPIB. We found items in domains that are already present in the CPIB, but also items that relate to new domains, such as an item on talking with customers or clients for the 'major life areas' domain. Inclusion of new items in other domains would benefit the comprehensiveness of the item bank.

A randomized study of parent- versus child-directed intervention for Dutch toddlers with DLD.

BACKGROUND: Indirect speech and language therapy, such as parent-implemented intervention, has been shown to be an effective approach for young children with speech and language disorders. However, relatively few studies have compared outcomes of parent-directed therapy with child-directed intervention, that is, individual therapy of a child delivered by a speech and language therapist (SLT). Although speech and language therapists (SLTs) regard parental engagement as imperative for successful intervention, currently they predominantly use child-directed intervention. AIM: To evaluate the effect of parent- versus child-directed speech-language therapy embedded in usual care intervention for young children with developmental language disorder (DLD). METHODS & PROCEDURES: In a randomized trial, forty-six 3-year-old monolingual children with DLD were assigned to parent-directed intervention or child-directed intervention groups. In addition, all children received usual care in special-language daycare centres. Outcomes included children's language development and functional communication, parents' language output, parents' perceptions and their self-efficacy. These were assessed at three time intervals, that is, at baseline, immediately after 6 months of treatment, and 1 year after baseline. The parent-directed intervention consisted of twelve 50-min sessions every 2 weeks with parent and child, consisting of parental training with immediate feedback by (SLTs. Children in the child-directed intervention group received individual speech-language therapy in weekly 30-min sessions for 6 months. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Intervention in both groups was equally effective. All children improved significantly in receptive and expressive language measures as well as in functional communication at all intervals. All parents used significantly more language support strategies and were less concerned about their child's participation in communication. Parents in the parent-directed intervention group reported increased self-efficacy in stimulating their child's language development. In contrast, parents in the child-directed intervention group reported a decrease in self-efficacy. Though modest, these group differences were significant in both the short and long terms. Both parents and SLTs were positive about the parent-directed intervention. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: The effects of parent- and child-directed intervention for young children with DLD are similar. The parent-directed intervention adds to treatment options for parents as well as for SLTs and creates choices for shared decision-making. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Language therapy for young children with DLD comprises various delivery models. Two of these are child- and parent-directed therapy by SLTs. Compared with no treatment, both delivery models are effective, but it is unclear if one of these results in better language outcomes than the other. SLTs value child-directed intervention more highly than indirect approaches where treatment is delivered by others. This study aims to compare the relative effectiveness of parent-directed intervention with child-directed intervention, both parts of multi-component usual care intervention. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This randomized trial indicates that a parent-directed intervention model is as effective as child-directed intervention by SLTs for children's language development and functional communication. Parents' use of language support strategies was also similar in both intervention models, in the short and long terms. Like in child-directed therapy, parent-directed intervention reduces parents' concerns. Contrary to child-directed treatment, parent-directed intervention increases parents' self-efficacy, that is, supporting their child's language development. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Though SLTs predominantly choose a child-directed intervention model, the study results show that they can consider parent-directed approaches too. There are no significant differences in children's language outcomes as a function of parent- or child-directed intervention. Furthermore, parents and SLTs were positive about the parent-directed intervention program and the SLTs evaluated it as valuable and feasible.

Everyday Barriers in Communicative Participation According to People With Communication Problems.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to gain a comprehensive understanding of participation situations that are challenging for people with communication problems, to provide input for the further development of potential items for the Communicative Participation Item Bank (CPIB). METHOD: A purposive sampling strategy was used to include a diverse group of people with communication problems. Diaries were used as a sensitizing exercise for inductive in-depth interviews. In these interviews, elements of communicative participation situations (concepts) were elicited that participants themselves experienced as difficult because of their communication problem. A thematic content analysis was used to identify overarching themes. In addition, new items were formulated based on the raw codes of the transcripts and linked to the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Activity and Participation domains to examine the distribution of items across the breadth of the construct of communicative participation. RESULTS: Eighteen interviews yielded 44 different concepts. They were clustered in six themes, which capture the person, location, topic, mode, moment, and pace of communication. In total, 103 new items measuring communicative participation were formulated. Most of these items relate to International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Activity and Participation domains "interpersonal interactions and relationships," "major life areas," and "community, social, and civic life." CONCLUSIONS: This study resulted in an overview of self-reported barriers in daily communicative participation experienced by people with communication problems. These communicative participation situations can be captured within 44 concepts, which are covered by six themes. Future work should investigate if the newly written items can be added to the CPIB. The concepts and the themes can be used in designing and delivering a participation-focused intervention for this population.

The Language Profile of Preschool Children With 22q11.2 Deletion Syndrome and the Relationship With Speech Intelligibility.

PURPOSE: Young children with 22q11.2 deletion syndrome (22q11DS) often have impaired language development and poor speech intelligibility. Here, we report a comprehensive overview of standardized language assessment in a relatively large sample of preschool-aged children with 22q11DS. We furthermore explored whether speech ability explained variability in language skills. METHOD: Forty-four monolingual Dutch preschoolers (3-6 years) with a confirmed genetic 22q11DS diagnosis participated in this prospective cohort study. Standardized tests (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool-2-NL and Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III-NL) were administered. Speech intelligibility was rated by two expert speech and language therapists using a standardized procedure. RESULTS: Most children had impaired language skills across all tested domains. The composite score for expressive language was significantly lower than that for receptive language, but the two were strongly correlated. Only small differences between the mean scores on the various subtests were observed, with the lowest scores for expressive morphosyntactic skills. Language scores showed a moderate positive relation with speech intelligibility, but language abilities varied greatly among the children with intelligible speech. CONCLUSIONS: We show that the majority of preschool children with 22q11DS have a broad range of language problems. Other than the relatively larger impairment in expressive than in receptive language skills, our results do not show a clearly delineated language profile. As many of the children with intelligible speech still had below-average language scores, we highlight that language problems require a broad assessment and care in all young children with 22q11DS. Future research using spontaneous language and detailed speech analysis is recommended, to provide more in-depth understanding of children's language profile and the relationship between speech and language in 22q11DS.

Language gains in 4-6-year-old children with developmental language disorder and the relation with language profile, severity, multilingualism and non-verbal cognition.

BACKGROUND: Early and effective treatment for children with developmental language disorder (DLD) is important. Although a growing body of research shows the effects of interventions at the group level, clinicians observe large individual differences in language growth, and differences in outcomes across language domains. A systematic understanding of how child characteristics contribute to changes in language skills is still lacking. AIMS: To assess changes in the language domains: expressive morphosyntax; receptive and expressive vocabulary; and comprehension, in children in special needs education for DLD. To explore if differences in language gains between children are related to child characteristics: language profile; severity of the disorder; being raised mono- or multilingually; and cognitive ability. METHODS & PROCEDURES: We extracted data from school records of 154 children (4-6 years old) in special needs education offering a language and communication-stimulating educational environment, including speech and language therapy. Changes in language were measured by comparing the scores on standardized language tests at the beginning and the end of a school year. Next, we related language change to language profile (receptive-expressive versus expressive-only disorders), severity (initial scores), growing up mono- and multilingually, and children's reported non-verbal IQ scores. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Overall, the children showed significant improvements in expressive morphosyntax, expressive vocabulary and language comprehension. Baseline scores and gains were lowest for expressive morphosyntax. Differences in language gains between children with receptive-expressive disorders and expressive-only disorders were not significant. There was more improvement in children with lower initial scores. There were no differences between mono- and multilingual children, except for expressive vocabulary. There was no evidence of a relation between non-verbal IQ scores and language growth. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Children with DLD in special needs education showed gains in language performance during one school year. There was, however, little change in morphosyntactic scores, which supports previous studies concluding that poor morphosyntax is a persistent characteristic of DLD. Our results indicate that it is important to include all children with DLD in intervention: children with receptive-expressive and expressive disorders; mono- and multilingual children, and children with high, average and low non-verbal IQ scores. We did not find negative relations between these child factors and changes in language skills. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Intervention studies indicate that intervention can be effective, but not for all children with DLD, and not in all language domains. Longitudinal studies on language development show stable growth patterns in children with DLD at the group level. A systematic understanding of how child characteristics contribute to changes in language skills is still lacking. What this paper adds to existing knowledge In this study, we report on the language gains of a cohort of 154 children with DLD (4-6 years old), in a special education setting for children with language disorders. Our sample includes children with receptive-expressive disorders and expressive-only disorders, and monolingual as well as multilingual children. Our results show that children's language skills improved. The co-normed tests we used revealed that the children had much lower growth in morphosyntax than in the other language domains. Language gains between children with receptive-expressive and expressive-only language disorders did not differ, children with lower initial test scores showed more improvement than children with higher initial scores, multilingual children showed more gains in expressive vocabulary than monolingual children, and there was no effect of non-verbal IQ on change in language scores. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The results suggest that catching up on language is possible for children with DLD. It is important to include all children with DLD in intervention: mono- and multilingual children; children with receptive-expressive and expressive disorders; and children with high, average and low non-verbal IQ scores. We did not find negative relations between these child factors and changes in language skills. The limited growth in morphosyntax compared with other linguistic areas warrants the attention of both practitioners and researchers, with a particular focus on the implementation of research findings in clinical practice.

A systematic scoping review on contextual factors associated with communicative participation among children with developmental language disorder.

BACKGROUND: Variations in communicative participation of children with developmental language disorder (DLD) cannot be wholly explained by their language difficulties alone and may be influenced by contextual factors. Contextual factors may support or hinder communicative participation in children, which makes their identification clinically relevant. AIMS: To investigate which contextual (environmental and personal) factors in early childhood are protective, risk or neutral factors for communicative participation among school-aged children with DLD, and to identify possible gaps in knowledge about this subject. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A scoping review was conducted based on a systematic search of studies published from January 2007 to March 2022 in Pubmed, Embase (without MEDLINE), CINAHL and PsycINFO. In total, 8802 studies were reviewed using predefined eligibility criteria, of which 32 studies were included for data extraction and critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2021) tools. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: The methodological quality of included studies was adequate to strong. Personal protective factors identified are being a preschool girl, reaching school age and being prosocial, while personal risk factors are becoming a teenager or adolescent, having low socio-cognitive skills and experiencing comorbid mobility impairment or behavioural problems. Gender after the preschool years and non-verbal abilities were not found to be of influence, and the role of socio-emotional skills is inconclusive. Receiving therapy is an environmental protective factor, while the association between socio-economical family characteristics with communicative participation is inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Limited research has been conducted on which risk and protective factors present in early childhood are associated with later communicative participation of children with DLD. The influence of co-occurring health conditions, social background variables, individual psychological assets, interpersonal relationships and attitudes of other people represent knowledge gaps. In addition, knowledge about the comparative effectiveness of different types of interventions and service delivery models, and the impact of administrative control, organizational mechanisms and standards established by governments on children's communicative participation is lacking. More longitudinal research is needed focusing on the identification of relevant personal and environmental factors and the interactions between them in relation to communicative participation outcomes. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject Children with DLD experience varying degrees of communicative participation restrictions. Insight into contextual factors that influence communicative participation can help to identify children at risk and inform family and child-centred therapy. Systematic research on contextual factors that facilitate or hinder communicative participation in children with DLD is currently lacking. What this paper adds to existing knowledge Knowledge of protective factors can guide the development of interventions for children and young people with DLD that boost resilience and facilitate communicative participation, while insight into the risk factors can help professionals identify the most vulnerable children and develop interventions that can lift or neutralize barriers present in the life of these children. Specific groups potentially at risk are young boys, children with co-morbid mobility impairment, children with conduct problems, and children reaching adolescence. In contrast, potentially protective factors are reaching school age and being prosocial. In addition, the development of socio-cognitive skills may be beneficial for the communicative participation of children with DLD. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? To support communicative participation, it is important that professionals who work with children with DLD understand which groups are at risk for communicative participation restrictions, and which factors can foster resilience. In the absence of evidence-based instruments for the systematic assessment of personal and environmental factors, consulting parents and children on the contextual factors that they perceive as important remains critical.

Disentangling the Grammar of 3- to 6-Year-Old Dutch Children With a Developmental Language Disorder.

PURPOSE: Children with a developmental language disorder (DLD) are often delayed in their grammatical development. This is suggested to be the most important characteristic and clinical marker of DLD. However, it is unknown if this assumption is valid for young children, in the earliest stages of grammatical development. For this reason, this study investigates the complexity, diversity, and accuracy of the grammatical repertoires of 3- to 6-year-old Dutch children with DLD, in comparison to that of typically developing (TD) children matched on grammatical level. METHOD: Language samples of 59 children (29 children with DLD and 30 TD children) were analyzed using multiple measures of grammatical complexity, diversity, and accuracy. The TD children and children with DLD were language-matched on their grammatical development using the levels of the Dutch version of the Language Assessment, Remediation, and Screening Procedure, the Taal Analyse Remediëring en Screening Procedure (TARSP; Schlichting, 2017). Thus, the children with DLD were significantly older than the TD children (respectively DLD age range: 2;7-5;4 [years;months], M age = 4;1; and TD age range: 2;0-3;9, M age = 2;9). RESULTS: The results show that children with DLD are comparable to language-matched TD children in their grammatical accuracy and diversity, but that they produce less complex utterances. CONCLUSIONS: The results indicate that children with DLD lag behind in their grammatical complexity as compared to language-matched TD children. The results also suggest that grammatical TARSP level is not sufficiently informative for selecting treatment goals. Instead, the results underline the importance of conducting language sample analyses, with special reference to the complexity of the utterances of a child with DLD.

Using co-design to develop a tool for shared goal-setting with parents in speech and language therapy.

BACKGROUND: Despite the compelling case for engaging parents in speech and language therapy, research indicates that speech and language therapists (SLTs) currently have a leading role in the goal-setting process of therapy for children with developmental language disorder (DLD). Therefore, we set out to develop a tool that aims to support the dialogue between SLTs and parents and enhance shared decision-making about children's communicative participation goals. We used co-design techniques with SLT-practitioners to include their perspectives throughout the design process. Although co-design has been used for some years in healthcare research, it is still a relatively new research methodology in the field of speech and language therapy. AIMS: To provide a detailed description of the co-design process that led to the development of a physical artefact that can support SLTs to engage parents of children with DLD in collaborative goal-setting. METHODS & PROCEDURES: The Design Council's Double Diamond model was used to develop a tool in co-design, together with eight SLTs, who participated in all stages of the development process. Usability was tested in actual goal-setting conversations between four SLTs and 11 parents of a child with DLD resulting in stepwise improvements. In addition, usability of the first and final prototypes was tested with five usability criteria that were rated on a 10-point scale by 64 SLTs. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: The co-design process resulted in the development of a physical prototype of the tool called 'ENGAGE', consisting of a metal 'tree trunk' on which parents can stick magnetic 'leaves' containing potential participation goals for their child. The 'tree' shape represents a child's development and opportunities for growth. This first prototype received marks between 7.0 and 8.0 out of 10 on attractiveness, user-friendliness, safety, functionality and affordability. After several iterations, there were significantly higher marks for attractiveness, user-friendliness and safety in favour for the final prototype. Marks for functionality and affordability did not change significantly. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: As researchers we usually develop pen-and-paper tools, interview protocols, apps or questionnaires to support clinical practice. Including the SLTs' perspectives in the design process resulted in a tree-shaped physical artefact that, according to the SLTs, helps to order information and encourages and guides their dialogue with parents. We strongly advocate the inclusion of end-users in developing innovative user-centred tools for speech and language therapy and we hope that this will become widespread practice. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject Collaborative goal-setting is at the heart of family-centred speech and language therapy. However, research indicates that goal-setting processes for children with DLD are currently predominantly therapist-led, instead of family-centred. Reasons for the lack of parental engagement are that effective communication with parents throughout the goal-setting process appears to be complex, and parents are not always invited and supported to engage in this. We used co-design to develop a tool that aims to support SLTs in their dialogue about therapy goals with parents. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This paper provides an example of applying a co-design approach for the development of a shared goal-setting tool for SLTs and parents of young children with DLD. The co-design approach enabled us to incorporate needs, experiences and ideas of SLTs in the design process. We report the four stages in the co-design process from (1) discovering the needs, wants and desires of the people involved, (2) defining the problem that SLTs experience, (3) developing several solutions and selecting the best solution, and (4) developing and testing the prototype. The detailed description of this process can add to an understanding of the advantages and disadvantages of a design process that includes the perspective of end-users. The result is a physical artefact representing a tree, which aims to support the conversation between SLTs and parents about a child's communicative participation. Items describing facets of communicative participation are printed on 'leaves' that can be hung on a tree trunk by parents. The tree shape is a positive metaphor for the growth and development of a child. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This study describes how SLTs can be meaningfully involved as partners in a co-design research approach. Incorporating experience from clinical practice was highly relevant since our study aimed to create a solution that would support goal-setting and service delivery by SLTs. We want to show that it is inspiring and beneficial for SLTs to partner with researchers in innovation of their own clinical practice and provide examples of co-design activities that illustrate the involvement and influence of end-users in a design process. Including the perspective of SLTs in the development of a new tool to facilitate the dialogue between SLTs and parents of children with DLD regarding therapy goal-setting is expected to add value and enhance its implementation in clinical practice.

Allocation and funding of Speech and Language Therapy for children with Developmental Language Disorders across Europe and beyond.

BACKGROUND: Children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) have a significant deficit in spoken language ability which affects their communication skills, education, mental health, employment and social inclusion. AIM: The present study reports findings from a survey by EU network COST ACTION 1406 and aims to explore differences in service delivery and funding of SLT services for children with DLD across Europe and beyond. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: The survey was completed by 5024 European professionals. COST countries were grouped into Nordic, Anglo-Saxon, Continental, Mediterranean, Central/Eastern and Non-European categories. The use of direct, indirect and mixed interventions, and their relationship to funding available (public, private or mixed) were considered for further analysis. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: The results revealed that for direct therapy, there were more cases than expected receiving private funding. For indirect therapy, fewer than expected received private and more than expected public funding. For mixed therapy, fewer cases than expected received private funding. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The results implies that other factors than evidence-based practices, practitioners experience, and patient preferences, drive choices in therapy. More research is needed to gain a better understanding of factors affecting the choice of therapy.

How do healthcare professionals experience communication with people with aphasia and what content should communication partner training entail?

PURPOSE: Aphasia after stroke has been shown to lead to communication difficulties between healthcare professionals (HCP) and people with aphasia. Clinical guidelines emphasize the importance of teaching HCP to use supportive conversative techniques through communication partner training (CPT). The aim of this study is to explore and describe the experiences of HCP in communicating with people with aphasia and their needs and wishes for the content in CPT. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The data were collected through qualitative semi-structured interviews with 17 HCP. HCP were recruited from two geriatric rehabilitation centres in the Netherlands and one academic hospital in Belgium. The interviews drew upon the qualitative research methodologies ethnography and phenomenology and were thematically analysed using the six steps of Braun & Clarke. RESULTS: Three themes were derived from the interviews. HCP experienced that communication difficulties impede healthcare activities (theme 1) and reported the need to improve communication through organizational changes (theme 2), changing the roles of SLTs (theme 3) and increasing knowledge and skills of HCP (theme 4). CONCLUSIONS: According to HCP, communication difficulties challenge the provision of healthcare activities and lead to negative feelings in HCP. HCP suggest that communication can be improved by providing more time in the healthcare pathway of people with aphasia, adapting healthcare information to the needs of people with aphasia, commitment of physicians and managers, changing the roles of SLTs and improving knowledge and skills of HCP.Implications for rehabilitationCommunication between healthcare professionals (HCP) and people with aphasia can be improved by training HCP to use supportive conversation techniques and tools.An important condition for successful implementation of communication partner trainings in healthcare centres is to identify the experiences of HCP with communication with people with aphasia and their needs and wishes for training content.This study shows that communication problems between HCP and people with aphasia impede diagnosis and therapy with considerable implications for healthcare quality.The suggestions that HCP have concerning the content of communication partner trainings can be placed under "education" and "implementation and post-training support." HCP describe specific roles for speech-and language therapists to fulfil after the training and suggest two main changes that should be made at an organizational level.

Language Sample Analysis in Clinical Practice: Speech-Language Pathologists' Barriers, Facilitators, and Needs.

PURPOSE: Most speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working with children with developmental language disorder (DLD) do not perform language sample analysis (LSA) on a regular basis, although they do regard LSA as highly informative for goal setting and evaluating grammatical therapy. The primary aim of this study was to identify facilitators, barriers, and needs related to performing LSA by Dutch SLPs working with children with DLD. The secondary aim was to investigate whether a training would change the actual performance of LSA. METHOD: A focus group with 11 SLPs working in Dutch speech-language pathology practices was conducted. Barriers, facilitators, and needs were identified using thematic analysis and categorized using the theoretical domain framework. To address the barriers, a training was developed using software program CLAN. Changes in barriers and use of LSA were evaluated with a survey sent to participants before, directly after, and 3 months posttraining. RESULTS: The barriers reported in the focus group were SLPs' lack of knowledge and skills, time investment, negative beliefs about their capabilities, differences in beliefs about their professional role, and no reimbursement from health insurance companies. Posttraining survey results revealed that LSA was not performed more often in daily practice. Using CLAN was not the solution according to participating SLPs. Time investment remained a huge barrier. CONCLUSIONS: A training in performing LSA did not resolve the time investment barrier experienced by SLPs. User-friendly software, developed in codesign with SLPs might provide a solution. For the short-term, shorter samples, preferably from narrative tasks, should be considered.

Evaluating communication partner training in healthcare centres: Understanding the mechanisms of behaviour change.

BACKGROUND: Communication between people with aphasia and their healthcare professionals (HCPs) can be greatly improved when HCPs are trained in using supportive conversation techniques and tools. Communication partner training (CPT) is an umbrella term that covers a range of interventions that train the conversation partners of people with aphasia. Several CPT interventions for HCPs have been developed and used to support HCPs to interact successfully with people with aphasia. AIMS: The objective of this study was to identify the mechanisms of change as a result of a Dutch CPT intervention, named CommuniCare, in order to evaluate and optimise the intervention. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A total of 254 HCPs from five different healthcare centres received CommuniCare. An explorative qualitative research design was chosen. Two interviews were conducted with 24 HCPs directly after and 4 months after receiving the training that was part of CommuniCare. Two conceptual frameworks were used to deductively code the interviews. HCPs' perspectives were coded into a four-part sequence following CIMO logic: the self-reported use of supportive conversation techniques or tools pre-intervention (Context), the intervention elements (Intervention) that evoked certain mechanisms (Mechanisms), resulting in the self-reported use of supportive conversation techniques and tools post-intervention (Outcomes). The Capabilities Opportunities Motivation-Behaviour (COM-B) model was used to fill in the Mechanisms component. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Three themes were identified to describe the mechanisms of change that led to an increase in the use of supportive conversation techniques and tools. According to HCPs, (i) information, videos, e-learning modules, role-play, feedback during training and coaching on the job increased their psychological capabilities; (ii) information and role-play increased their automatic motivations; and (iii) information, videos and role-play increased their reflective motivations. Remaining findings show HCPs' perspectives on various barriers to use supportive conversation techniques and tools. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: HCPs in this study identified elements in our CPT intervention that positively influenced their behaviour change. Of these, role-play and coaching on the job were particularly important. HCPs suggested this last element should be better implemented. Therefore, healthcare settings wishing to enhance HCPs' communication skills should first consider enhancing HCPs' opportunities for experiential learning. Second, healthcare settings should determine which HCPs are suitable to have a role as implementation support practitioners, to support their colleagues in the use of supportive conversation techniques and tools. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject? Several communication partner training (CPT) interventions for healthcare professionals (HCPs) have been developed and used to support HCPs to interact successfully with people with aphasia. To date, there is limited evidence of the mechanisms of change that explain exactly what changes in HCPs' behaviour after CPT and why these changes take place. What this paper adds to existing knowledge Evaluating our CPT intervention by identifying mechanisms of change from the perspectives of HCPs provided us with: (i) a better understanding of the elements that should be included in CPT interventions in different contexts; and (ii) an understanding of the important remaining barriers identified by HCPs to use supportive conversation techniques, even after CPT is implemented. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? This study shows the different intervention elements in our CPT intervention that improve HCPs' capabilities, motivations or opportunities to use supportive conversation techniques and tools. Essential ingredients of CPT according to HCPs in this study were role-play and coaching on the job by an expert and were linked to an increase in HCPs' motivations or beliefs about self-competency. Healthcare settings wishing to enhance HCPs' communication skills should therefore consider appointing implementation support practitioners to coach and support HCPs, and facilitate these practitioners to fulfil this role.