Cargando…
The impact of nonverbal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder: evidence from a population study
BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of ‘specific’ language impairment traditionally required nonverbal IQ to be within normal limits, often resulting in restricted access to clinical services for children with lower NVIQ. Changes to DSM‐5 criteria for language disorder removed this NVIQ requirement. This study so...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2016
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5082564/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27184709 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12573 |
_version_ | 1782463082722754560 |
---|---|
author | Norbury, Courtenay Frazier Gooch, Debbie Wray, Charlotte Baird, Gillian Charman, Tony Simonoff, Emily Vamvakas, George Pickles, Andrew |
author_facet | Norbury, Courtenay Frazier Gooch, Debbie Wray, Charlotte Baird, Gillian Charman, Tony Simonoff, Emily Vamvakas, George Pickles, Andrew |
author_sort | Norbury, Courtenay Frazier |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of ‘specific’ language impairment traditionally required nonverbal IQ to be within normal limits, often resulting in restricted access to clinical services for children with lower NVIQ. Changes to DSM‐5 criteria for language disorder removed this NVIQ requirement. This study sought to delineate the impact of varying NVIQ criteria on prevalence, clinical presentation and functional impact of language disorder in the first UK population study of language impairment at school entry. METHODS: A population‐based survey design with sample weighting procedures was used to estimate population prevalence. We surveyed state‐maintained reception classrooms (n = 161 or 61% of eligible schools) in Surrey, England. From a total population of 12,398 children (ages 4–5 years), 7,267 (59%) were screened. A stratified subsample (n = 529) received comprehensive assessment of language, NVIQ, social, emotional and behavioural problems, and academic attainment. RESULTS: The total population prevalence estimate of language disorder was 9.92% (95% CI 7.38, 13.20). The prevalence of language disorder of unknown origin was estimated to be 7.58% (95% CI 5.33, 10.66), while the prevalence of language impairment associated with intellectual disability and/or existing medical diagnosis was 2.34% (95% CI 1.40, 3.91). Children with language disorder displayed elevated symptoms of social, emotional and behavioural problems relative to peers, F(1, 466) = 7.88, p = .05, and 88% did not make expected academic progress. There were no differences between those with average and low‐average NVIQ scores in severity of language deficit, social, emotional and behavioural problems, or educational attainment. In contrast, children with language impairments associated with known medical diagnosis and/or intellectual disability displayed more severe deficits on multiple measures. CONCLUSIONS: At school entry, approximately two children in every class of 30 pupils will experience language disorder severe enough to hinder academic progress. Access to specialist clinical services should not depend on NVIQ. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-5082564 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2016 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-50825642016-11-09 The impact of nonverbal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder: evidence from a population study Norbury, Courtenay Frazier Gooch, Debbie Wray, Charlotte Baird, Gillian Charman, Tony Simonoff, Emily Vamvakas, George Pickles, Andrew J Child Psychol Psychiatry Original Articles BACKGROUND: Diagnosis of ‘specific’ language impairment traditionally required nonverbal IQ to be within normal limits, often resulting in restricted access to clinical services for children with lower NVIQ. Changes to DSM‐5 criteria for language disorder removed this NVIQ requirement. This study sought to delineate the impact of varying NVIQ criteria on prevalence, clinical presentation and functional impact of language disorder in the first UK population study of language impairment at school entry. METHODS: A population‐based survey design with sample weighting procedures was used to estimate population prevalence. We surveyed state‐maintained reception classrooms (n = 161 or 61% of eligible schools) in Surrey, England. From a total population of 12,398 children (ages 4–5 years), 7,267 (59%) were screened. A stratified subsample (n = 529) received comprehensive assessment of language, NVIQ, social, emotional and behavioural problems, and academic attainment. RESULTS: The total population prevalence estimate of language disorder was 9.92% (95% CI 7.38, 13.20). The prevalence of language disorder of unknown origin was estimated to be 7.58% (95% CI 5.33, 10.66), while the prevalence of language impairment associated with intellectual disability and/or existing medical diagnosis was 2.34% (95% CI 1.40, 3.91). Children with language disorder displayed elevated symptoms of social, emotional and behavioural problems relative to peers, F(1, 466) = 7.88, p = .05, and 88% did not make expected academic progress. There were no differences between those with average and low‐average NVIQ scores in severity of language deficit, social, emotional and behavioural problems, or educational attainment. In contrast, children with language impairments associated with known medical diagnosis and/or intellectual disability displayed more severe deficits on multiple measures. CONCLUSIONS: At school entry, approximately two children in every class of 30 pupils will experience language disorder severe enough to hinder academic progress. Access to specialist clinical services should not depend on NVIQ. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-05-16 2016-11 /pmc/articles/PMC5082564/ /pubmed/27184709 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12573 Text en © 2016 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Norbury, Courtenay Frazier Gooch, Debbie Wray, Charlotte Baird, Gillian Charman, Tony Simonoff, Emily Vamvakas, George Pickles, Andrew The impact of nonverbal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder: evidence from a population study |
title | The impact of nonverbal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder: evidence from a population study |
title_full | The impact of nonverbal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder: evidence from a population study |
title_fullStr | The impact of nonverbal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder: evidence from a population study |
title_full_unstemmed | The impact of nonverbal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder: evidence from a population study |
title_short | The impact of nonverbal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder: evidence from a population study |
title_sort | impact of nonverbal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder: evidence from a population study |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5082564/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27184709 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12573 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT norburycourtenayfrazier theimpactofnonverbalabilityonprevalenceandclinicalpresentationoflanguagedisorderevidencefromapopulationstudy AT goochdebbie theimpactofnonverbalabilityonprevalenceandclinicalpresentationoflanguagedisorderevidencefromapopulationstudy AT wraycharlotte theimpactofnonverbalabilityonprevalenceandclinicalpresentationoflanguagedisorderevidencefromapopulationstudy AT bairdgillian theimpactofnonverbalabilityonprevalenceandclinicalpresentationoflanguagedisorderevidencefromapopulationstudy AT charmantony theimpactofnonverbalabilityonprevalenceandclinicalpresentationoflanguagedisorderevidencefromapopulationstudy AT simonoffemily theimpactofnonverbalabilityonprevalenceandclinicalpresentationoflanguagedisorderevidencefromapopulationstudy AT vamvakasgeorge theimpactofnonverbalabilityonprevalenceandclinicalpresentationoflanguagedisorderevidencefromapopulationstudy AT picklesandrew theimpactofnonverbalabilityonprevalenceandclinicalpresentationoflanguagedisorderevidencefromapopulationstudy AT norburycourtenayfrazier impactofnonverbalabilityonprevalenceandclinicalpresentationoflanguagedisorderevidencefromapopulationstudy AT goochdebbie impactofnonverbalabilityonprevalenceandclinicalpresentationoflanguagedisorderevidencefromapopulationstudy AT wraycharlotte impactofnonverbalabilityonprevalenceandclinicalpresentationoflanguagedisorderevidencefromapopulationstudy AT bairdgillian impactofnonverbalabilityonprevalenceandclinicalpresentationoflanguagedisorderevidencefromapopulationstudy AT charmantony impactofnonverbalabilityonprevalenceandclinicalpresentationoflanguagedisorderevidencefromapopulationstudy AT simonoffemily impactofnonverbalabilityonprevalenceandclinicalpresentationoflanguagedisorderevidencefromapopulationstudy AT vamvakasgeorge impactofnonverbalabilityonprevalenceandclinicalpresentationoflanguagedisorderevidencefromapopulationstudy AT picklesandrew impactofnonverbalabilityonprevalenceandclinicalpresentationoflanguagedisorderevidencefromapopulationstudy |