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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Norbury, Courtenay Frazier, Gooch, Debbie, Wray, Charlotte, Baird, Gillian, Charman, Tony, Simonoff, Emily, Vamvakas, George, Pickles, Andrew
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