Speech sound disorder or DLD (phonology)? Towards a consensus agreement on terminology.

This study examined the occurrence and types of speech sound errors in Mandarin-speaking children and compared those with co-occurring developmental language disorder (DLD) and speech sound disorders (SSDs) to those with SSD only and those with no DLD or SSD. The participants were 64 four-year-old Mandarin-speaking children, including 20 age-matched children with co-occurring SSD and LI (SSD + DLD), 20 with SSD only, and 24 with no DLD or SSD (typical development [TD]). Speech samples from a list of 20 pictures of common objects and animals were elicited in a picture-naming task. One speech-language therapist transcribed and analysed consonant production accuracy and coded speech errors into the types of substitution, omission, distortion, and addition and phonological processes into typical and atypical sound changes. The interrater reliability of consonant production analysis was checked by another experienced speech-language pathologist. Children with co-occurring SSD and DLD demonstrated the least accuracy of speech production among the three groups of children. Children with co-occurring SSD and DLD showed more frequent use of substitutions, omissions, typical sound changes (i.e. stopping of affricates, stopping of fricatives, deaspiration), and atypical sound changes (i.e. initial consonant deletion, fronting, affrication of stops) than children with SSD only, while no significant difference between the SSD and TD groups was observed in omission error types and atypical sound changes. These results suggest that the disorders in speech sound production in children with SSD and DLD may be associated with underlying phonological–linguistic processing.

Accurate nonword repetition (NWR) is contingent on many underlying skills, including encoding, memory and motor planning and programming. Though vowel errors are frequently associated with childhood apraxia of speech (CAS), several recent studies have found that children with developmental language disorder (DLD) produce high rates of vowel errors in NWR tasks. This retrospective analysis explored whether the overall frequency and types of vowel errors produced in NWR distinguish children with DLD, children with CAS, children with speech sound disorder (SSD) and children with typical development (TD). We present data for 24 children (six per DLD, CAS, SSD and TD groups), ranging in age from 50-92 months. Children with DLD, CAS and SSD showed similar articulation scores and children with DLD and children with CAS showed similar expressive language scores. Total vowel errors, total monophthong errors, monophthong substitutions, diphthongization errors, total diphthong errors, diphthong substitutions and diphthong reduction errors were calculated by syllable length and group. Repeated measures analyses of variance were used to examine group differences. Children with DLD and children with CAS produced a higher frequency of total vowel errors compared to children with TD. Children with DLD produced more total monophthong errors than children with TD. Children with DLD and children with CAS produced more total diphthong errors than children with TD. For children with DLD, these were characterised by diphthong substitutions. For children with CAS, these were characterised by diphthong substitutions and diphthong reduction errors. For all measures, error rates in children with SSD did not significantly differ from any of the other three groups. Preliminary evidence indicates that children with DLD and children with CAS both show high rates of vowel errors in NWR tasks and weaknesses in encoding and memory. For children with CAS, additional motor planning difficulties are associated with an increased likelihood to reduce diphthongs. Children with SSD show more mild processing difficulties than children with DLD and children with CAS, though they do not perform as well as TD peers. Future work should replicate and further specify the processing weaknesses that affect vowel accuracy in NWR tasks in a larger sample. What is already known on the subject Nonword repetition (NWR) tasks are often included in diagnostic batteries to identify children with developmental language disorder (DLD). Poor performance on these tasks have historically been attributed to phonological working memory deficits in children with DLD. However, repeating nonwords relies on a number of underlying processing skills and many of these skills are affected to varying degrees in children with speech and language disorders. An in-depth analysis of vowel errors has the potential to reveal the shared as well as specific underlying processing weaknesses in children with DLD, children with childhood apraxia of speech (CAS) and children with speech sound disorder (SSD). What this paper adds to existing knowledge We found that children with DLD and children with CAS show low vowel competence compared to children with typical development. A nuanced examination of vowel error types further revealed that children with DLD and children with CAS show weaknesses in encoding and memory. Motor planning and programming weaknesses were unique to CAS. Children with SSD show more mild processing deficits and their performance did not significantly differ from any of the other three groups. What are the clinical implications of this work? Examining the types of vowel errors produced by children with DLD, children with CAS and children with SSD in NWR allows us to further specify the underlying processing weaknesses that differentiate these three groups. This research informs theoretical accounts of language processing in children with different types of speech and language disorders and has the potential to improve the diagnostic utility of NWR tasks.

Pleiotropic Effects of a Chromosome 3 Locus on Speech-Sound Disorder and Reading

Children with speech sound disorders (SSD) represent a large number of speech and language therapists’ caseloads. The intervention with children who have SSD can involve different therapy approaches, and these may be articulatory or phonologically based. Some international studies reveal a widespread application of articulatory based approaches in children with different SSD. In Portugal no survey has been previously conducted about speech and language therapists (SLTs) practices when working with children with SSD, so it is still unknown how SLTs treat children with SSD. This study aims to explore the use of different intervention approaches of SLTs in Portugal, and to describe the approaches most frequently used in treating children who have phonologically based SSD. Data collection was conducted through a questionnaire available on the web platform Advanced Communication and Swallowing Assessment (ACSA; http://acsa.web.ua.pt ), and data analysis was based on 88 responses, corresponding to 5% of the total Portuguese SLTs population. Results showed that the intervention approaches most used with children who have SSD are phonological awareness (97% of the participants), auditory discrimination (92%), meaningful minimal contrast therapy (75%) and parent-based work (58%). The great majority of SLTs combined several approaches in their intervention. There was also a high percentage of SLTs that used articulation based approaches, namely articulation work (31%) in cases of phonologically based disorders. Most (63%) SLTs used weekly interventions over a period of more than six months (51%). The data presented here agrees with the results obtained in South African, UK and USA studies in terms of the approaches most frequently used in intervention with children who have phonologically based SSD. Regarding the frequency and duration of intervention, there is a discrepancy between the results obtained and what is commonly used across research. The characteristics described by the Portuguese SLTs for establishing the differential diagnosis of SSD do not always reflect the evidence available in recent literature. The findings presented in this article revealed the intervention approaches that SLTs currently use to treat children with phonologically based SSD and the theoretical foundations that guide their clinical practice. This allows the reader to compare clinical practice of SLTs across countries and research studies.

Enhancing Phonological Patterns of Young Children With Highly Unintelligible Speech

According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition, diagnosis of speech sound disorder (SSD) requires a determination that it is not the result of other congenital or acquired conditions, including hearing loss or neurological conditions that may present with similar symptomatology. To examine peripheral and central auditory function for the purpose of determining whether a peripheral or central auditory disorder was an underlying factor or contributed to the child's SSD. Central auditory processing disorder clinic pediatric case reports. Three clinical cases are reviewed of children with diagnosed SSD who were referred for audiological evaluation by their speech-language pathologists as a result of slower than expected progress in therapy. Audiological testing revealed auditory deficits involving peripheral auditory function or the central auditory nervous system. These cases demonstrate the importance of increasing awareness among professionals of the need to fully evaluate the auditory system to identify auditory deficits that could contribute to a patient's speech sound (phonological) disorder. Audiological assessment in cases of suspected SSD should not be limited to pure-tone audiometry given its limitations in revealing the full range of peripheral and central auditory deficits, deficits which can compromise treatment of SSD.

Evidence of the effectiveness of therapy for older children with (developmental) language disorder (DLD), and particularly those with receptive language impairments, is very limited. The few existing studies have focused on particular target areas, but none has looked at a whole area of a service. To establish whether for students with (developmental) language disorder attending a specialist school, 1:1 intervention with an SLT during one school term improves performance on targeted areas, compared with untreated control areas. Also, to investigate whether gender, receptive language status, autism spectrum disorder (ASD) status, or educational Key Stage affected their response to this intervention. Seventy-two students (aged 9-17 years, 88% of whom had receptive language impairments) and all speech and language therapists (SLTs) in our specialist school for children with Language Disorder, most of whom have DLD participated in this study over one school term. During this term, the SLTs devised pre- and post-therapy measures for every student for each target they planned to treat 1:1. In addition, for each target area, a control measure was devised. The targets covered a wide range of speech, language and communication areas, both receptive and expressive. Post-therapy tests were administered 'blind'. During the term, SLTs and students worked 1:1 on 120 targets, the majority in the areas of expressive and receptive language. Targets and controls did not differ pre-therapy. Significant progress was seen both on targets (d = 1.33) and controls (d = 0.36), but the targeted areas improved significantly more than the controls with a large and clinically significant effect size (d = 1.06). There was no effect of language area targeted (targets improved more than their controls for all areas). Participants with versus those without receptive language difficulties, co-occurring ASD diagnosis or participants in different educational Key Stages did not differ significantly in terms of the progress they made on target areas. Direct 1:1 intervention with an SLT can be effective for all areas of language for older children with (D)LD, regardless of their gender, receptive language or ASD status, or age. This adds to the relatively limited evidence base regarding the effectiveness of direct SLT intervention for school-aged children with (D)LD and for children with receptive language impairments. If direct 1:1 intervention can be effective with this hard-to-treat group, it may well also be effective with younger children with (D)LD. Thus, direct SLT services should be available for school-aged children with (D)LD, including older children and adolescents with pervasive difficulties.

'Speech sound disorder' is an umbrella term that encompasses dysarthria, articulation disorders, childhood apraxia of speech and phonological disorders. However, differential diagnosis between these disorders is a persistent challenge in speech pathology, as many diagnostic procedures use symptom clusters instead of identifying an origin of breakdown in the speech and language system. This article reviews typical and disordered speech through the lens of two well-developed models of production-one focused on phonological encoding and one focused on speech motor planning. We illustrate potential breakdown locations within these models that may relate to childhood apraxia of speech and phonological disorders. This paper presents an overview of an approach to conceptualisation of speech sound disorders that is grounded in current models of speech production and emphasises consideration of underlying processes. The paper also sketches a research agenda for the development of valid, reliable and clinically feasible assessment protocols for children with speech sound disorders. The process-oriented approach outlined here is in the early stages of development but holds promise for developing a more detailed and comprehensive understanding of, and assessment protocols for speech sound disorders that go beyond broad diagnostic labels based on error analysis. Directions for future research are discussed. What is already known on the subject Speech sound disorders (SSD) are heterogeneous, and there is agreement that some children have a phonological impairment (phonological disorders, PD) whereas others have an impairment of speech motor planning (childhood apraxia of speech, CAS). There is also recognition that speech production involves multiple processes, and several approaches to the assessment and diagnosis of SSD have been proposed. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This paper provides a more detailed conceptualisation of potential impairments in children with SSD that is grounded in current models of speech production and encourages greater consideration of underlying processes. The paper illustrates this approach and provides guidance for further development. One consequence of this perspective is the notion that broad diagnostic category labels (PD, CAS) may each comprise different subtypes or profiles depending on the processes that are affected. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? Although the approach is in the early stages of development and no comprehensive validated set of tasks and measures is available to assess all processes, clinicians may find the conceptualisation of different underlying processes and the notion of potential subtypes within PD and CAS informative when evaluating SSD. In addition, this perspective discourages either/or thinking (PD or CAS) and instead encourages consideration of the possibility that children may have different combinations of impairments at different processing stages.

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. To explore parents' needs in their collaboration with SLTs during therapy for their young child with DLD. 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. 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. 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 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.

Approximately 9.9 % of children present with difficulties in language development (DLD), 7.6 % without serious additional impairments and 2.3 % associated with languagerelevant comorbidities, e.g., hearing loss. Notably, in a consensus statement by experts in German-speaking countries, in the guideline presented here, and further in this article, all of these disorders are referred to as "developmental language disorders" (DLD), whereas the international consortium CATALISE only refers to those without comorbidities as DLD. DLDs are among the most commonly treated childhood disorders and, if persistent, often reduce educational and socio-economic outcome. Children in their third year of life with developmental language delay (late talkers, LT) are at risk of a later DLD. This German interdisciplinary clinical practice guideline reflects current knowledge regarding evidence-based interventions for developmental language delay and disorders. A systematic literature review was conducted on the effectiveness of interventions for DLD. The guideline recommends parent training (Hedges g = 0.38 to 0.82) for LTs with expressive language delay, language therapy (Cohen's d = -0.20 to 0.90) for LTs with additional receptive language delay or further DLD risk factors, phonological or integrated phonological treatment methods (Cohen's d = 0.89 to 1.04) for phonological speech sound disorders (SSDs), a motor approach for isolated phonetic SSDs (non-DLD), and for lexical-semantic and morpho-syntactic impairments combinations of implicit and explicit intervention approaches (including input enrichment, modeling techniques, elicitation methods, creation of production opportunities, metalinguistic- approaches, visualizations; Cohen's d = 0.89-1.04). Recom mendations were also made for DLD associated with pragmatic-communicative impairment, bi-/ multilingualism, hearing loss, intellectual disability, autism-spectrum disorders, selective mutism, language- relevant syndromes or multiple disabilities, and for intensive inpatient language rehabilitation. Early parent- and child-centered speech and language intervention implementing evidence-based intervention approaches, frequency, and settings, combined with educational language support, can improve the effectiveness of management of developmental language delay and disorders.

Classification systems in healthcare support shared understanding of conditions for clinical communication, service monitoring and development, and research. Children born with cleft palate with or without cleft lip (CP+/-L) are at high risk of developing cleft-related speech sound disorder (SSD). The way cleft-related SSD is represented and described in SSD classification systems varies. Reflecting on the potential causal pathways for different cleft-related speech features, including the role of speech processing skills, may inform how cleft-related SSD is represented in classification systems. To explore and reflect on how cleft-related SSD is represented in current SSD classification systems in the context of considering how speech processing skills and other factors may be involved in causal pathways of cleft speech characteristics (CSCs). Variation in the representation of cleft-related SSD in classification systems is described. Potential causal pathways for passive cleft- related speech features and different active CSCs are explored. The factors involved in the development and/or persistence of different active CSCs may vary. Some factors may be specific to children born with CP+/-L, but if speech processing skills are also involved, this is an overlap with other SSD subtypes. Current evidence regarding relationships between different speech processing skills and active CSCs is limited. Implications for the representation of cleft-related SSD in SSD classification systems are discussed. There are different categories of cleft-related speech features which are essential to understand and identify in children with cleft-related SSD to ensure appropriate management. Representation of these feature categories in classification systems could support understanding of speech in this population. Speech processing skills could be involved in the development and/or persistence of different active CSCs in individual children. Reflection and discussion on how cleft-related SSD is represented in classification systems in relation to other SSD subtypes may inform future iterations of these systems. Further work is needed to understand factors influencing the development and/or persistence of active CSCs, including speech processing skills. What is already known on the subject Cleft-related speech sound disorder (SSD) is commonly described as being of known origin. The features of cleft-related SSD have been described extensively and several authors have also examined factors which may contribute to speech development and outcomes in children born with cleft palate +/- lip. There is limited evidence regarding the role of speech processing in the development and persistence of cleft-related SSD. What this study adds This paper reflects on how cleft-related SSD is represented in SSD classification systems in relation to key feature categories of cleft-related SSD and possible causal pathways for passive features and active cleft speech characteristics (CSCs). The role of cognitive speech processing skills is specifically considered alongside other factors that may contribute to the development of active CSCs. What are the clinical implications of this work? Causal pathways for different features of cleft-related SSD may vary, particularly between passive and active features, abut also between different active CSCs. Speech and language therapists (SLTs) need to differentially diagnose passive speech features and active CSCs. Consideration of the role of different speech processing skills and interactions with other potentially influencing factors in relation to active CSCs may inform clinical hypotheses and speech and language therapy (SLT) intervention. Representing key features of cleft-related SSD in classification systems may support understanding of cleft-related SSD in relation to other SSD subtypes.

IntroductionEvidence suggests that over one-third of young children with developmental language disorder (DLD) or speech sound disorder (SSD) have co-occurring features of both. A co-occurring DLD and SSD profile is...

Although frequently seen in clinical services, there are few interventions which have been developed specifically to meet the needs of pre-school children with co-occurring features of a phonological speech sound disorder (P-SSD) and developmental language disorder (DLD). This study aims to achieve consensus on the core elements of a novel intervention for pre-school children with co-occurring features of P-SSD and DLD ("SWanS"- Supporting Words and Sounds), where expressive vocabulary and speech comprehensibility are joint outcomes of interest. Forty-seven potential core intervention elements, based on a priori findings and the wider literature, were generated by a diverse steering group of professionals and people with lived experience within a systematic co-design process. This was followed by a modified, two round, e-Delphi with expert Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) to achieve consensus on the elements. Consensus was defined as over 75% of participants (minimum 30 SLTs) rating the elements as either appropriate or very appropriate on a Likert of 1-5, with an inter-quartile range of one or below. If consensus was not achieved in round 1, free text comments were used to generate amended statements for the second round. Consensus was achieved on 42/47 statements in round 1. During the revision process, one statement was discarded; six statements which did not achieve consensus were re-worded; two statements which required further clarity had examples added; four statements were merged into two statements. Consensus was reached on 8/8 statements presented in round 2, resulting in 44 final statements achieving consensus in total. Core elements of a novel intervention have been identified through co-design with a diverse group of stakeholders followed by consensus with expert SLTs. Additional flexibility was required within some core elements in order to achieve consensus. Implications for future implementation are discussed.

IntroductionAlthough frequently seen in clinical services, there are few interventions which have been developed specifically to meet the needs of pre-school children with co-occurring features of a phonological speech sound disorder (P-SSD) and developmental language disorder (DLD). This study aims to achieve consensus on the core elements of a novel intervention for pre-school children with co-occurring features of P-SSD and DLD (“SWanS”- Supporting Words and Sounds), where expressive vocabulary and speech comprehensibility are joint outcomes of interest.MethodsForty-seven potential core intervention elements, based on a priori findings and the wider literature, were generated by a diverse steering group of professionals and people with lived experience within a systematic co-design process. This was followed by a modified, two round, e-Delphi with expert Speech and Language Therapists (SLTs) to achieve consensus on the elements. Consensus was defined as over 75% of participants (minimum 30 SLTs) rating the elements as either appropriate or very appropriate on a Likert of 1–5, with an inter-quartile range of one or below. If consensus was not achieved in round 1, free text comments were used to generate amended statements for the second round.ResultsConsensus was achieved on 42/47 statements in round 1. During the revision process, one statement was discarded; six statements which did not achieve consensus were re-worded; two statements which required further clarity had examples added; four statements were merged into two statements. Consensus was reached on 8/8 statements presented in round 2, resulting in 44 final statements achieving consensus in total.ConclusionsCore elements of a novel intervention have been identified through co-design with a diverse group of stakeholders followed by consensus with expert SLTs. Additional flexibility was required within some core elements in order to achieve consensus. Implications for future implementation are discussed.

Event Abstract Back to Event High rates of language impairment in vulnerable populations: the case for improving cross-sector awareness of Developmental Language Disorder. Hannah M. Hobson1* and Geoffrey Bird2, 3 1 University of Greenwich, United Kingdom 2 University of Oxford, United Kingdom 3 Social, Genetic and Developmental Psychiatry Centre, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King’s College London, United Kingdom Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) is a neurodevelopmental condition in which children do not achieve typical levels of language skill. These children may experience difficulties with structural aspects (i.e. syntactic, lexical and phonological problems) as well as pragmatic aspects of language. The prevalence rate of DLD is approximately 7.5% (Norbury et al., 2016). Thus, in a typical UK classroom of 30 students, we can expect on average two children to have DLD. Despite its relative prevalence compared to more widely known conditions such as autism (which has an estimated prevalence of around 1%; Baird et al., 2006), DLD is not well known. This is partly due to a historic lack of agreement on the criteria and terminology for DLD; recent efforts have been made to reach consensus on these issues (Bishop et al., 2016). However, the goal of increased awareness of DLD is not yet reached, and in the meantime, poor awareness of DLD has implications for children’s wellbeing and long-term outcomes. It is unsurprising, given the oral language and literacy demands of most education systems, that children with DLD show poorer academic outcomes compared to typically developing children (Johnson, Beitchman, & Brownlie, 2010). However, children with DLD may also face problems with their attendance: children who are school-refusers have poorer language skills overall, and a higher incidence of language impairments (Naylor, Staskowsi, Kenney & King, 1994). Language problems are also associated with exclusions from school; excluded children show higher rates of expressive language difficulties (Ripley & Yuill, 2005), and studies of mainstream secondary school pupils facing exclusion suggest that two thirds have language problems, with one third showing severe language problems (Clegg, Stackhouse, Finch, Murphy, & Nicholls, 2009). Of the 15 children assessed for this study, only one had received speech and language therapy (for a stammer); none of the other children had been assessed by a speech and language therapist. All children had been excluded three or more times, and were at risk of being permanently excluded from school. Language impairment is also elevated in mental health services. The high rate of language problems in children and adolescents accessing support for emotional and behavioural problems has been summarised in a meta-analysis of 22 studies (Hollo, Wehby, & Oliver, 2014): approximately 81% of children accessing help for an emotional-behavioural disorder have below-average language proficiency, and that 47% of children show moderate to severe language problems. None of the children in the studies had previously been assessed for speech or language problems. As yet, there is no data to indicate whether the high rate of language problems in these services has an impact on progress in psychological therapy. Language problems also show relationships to involvement with the criminal justice system. Language-impaired youth have higher rates of arrests and convictions (Brownlie et al., 2004), and the rate of language impairment in young offender institutions is elevated (see Anderson, Hawes, & Snow, 2016 for a systematic review). A recent study found that 47% of the 93 young offenders assessed showed language skills significantly below what would be expected for their age, and 20% would have met the criteria for language impairment (Hughes et al., 2017). The majority of those identified as having a language impairment had not previously worked with a speech and language therapist. It is thus clear that in a variety of different vulnerable populations we see higher rates of language impairment than would be expected given the prevalence in the general population, and that many of these cases go undetected. It is important to emphasise that many children with DLD go on to have good outcomes, and that language impairment is not deterministic of the problems discussed here (see Johnson et al, 2010). This is important, as it suggests firstly that there are factors that moderate the relationship between language problems and wellbeing, and secondly because it offers hope that, with appropriate identification and support, children with DLD can have good outcomes. Nonetheless, a pertinent question is why are rates of DLD increased across these different settings? There are number of plausible reasons. Firstly, some of the risk factors for poor language development and emotional and behavioural problems are overlapping, such as social disadvantage (Horwitz et al., 2003; Olak et al., 2009; Singh & Ghandour, 2012). Secondly, language problems themselves may contribute to social and psychological difficulties that increase the risk of emotional and behaviour problems. Specifically, language problems may lead children to experience social isolation, reducing opportunities for acquiring good social skills and increasing the risk of poor self-esteem and poor emotional outcomes (Craig, 1993; Redmound & Rice, 1998; Wadman, Durkin, & Conti-Ramsden, 2008). Children with language problems are also at increased risk of being bullied (Redmond, 2011), and of having poorer emotion regulation (Fujiki, Brinton & Clarke, 2002). Finally, and of relevance to an array of different professions, when their language problems are not recognised, the behaviours of children and young people with DLD may be interpreted by the adults in their environment in a way that increases the likelihood of poor outcomes. In the context of forensic interviewing, Snow and Powell (2012) argue that the presentation of language problems in young offenders may lead professionals to assume that the young person is rude, or incoherent with their account of events (and therefore likely guilty). One account given by a young person in prison stated that when asked by a judge if he was remorseful of his crime, he said no: he had never heard the word “remorseful” before, and had no idea what it meant (Talbot, 2007). If such an experience is representative of young people with communication disorders’ interactions with the criminal justice system, it is perhaps not surprising that the rate of language problems is so high in young offender institutions. Extrapolating this to the headteacher’s office or the psychiatrist’s chair, we may predict that children with DLD are similarly judged as being uncooperative, unapologetic or reticent. It would be naïve to assume that untrained professionals will readily detect language problems in their cohorts. Rather, language impairments will not always be obvious to people interacting with a person with DLD; adults have a tendency to assume that children understand more of what is being said to them than is actually the case (Sattler, Feldman, & Bohanan, 1985), and children may engage in masking behaviours that cover their language problems (Evans & Macwhinney, 1999). Indeed, teachers have quite poor sensitivity and specificity to children’s oral language impairments (Antoniazzi, Snow & Dickson-Swift, 2010). Even in settings where we might expect educational staff to have a higher level of knowledge regarding language problems, this is not necessarily the case: in a special school for children with emotional and behavioural difficulties in which the prevalence of language impairment was 74%, less than half of these children had been identified as impaired (Stringer & Lozano, 2007). Speech problems may be the most detectable issue, but children with pure speech problems actually do not show adverse outcomes, compared to typical children (Johnson et al., 2010). Possibly this is because speech problems do not affect children’s social and emotional development in the same way that a language problem does. Alternatively, perhaps a child with a speech problem is far more likely to be identified and supported than a child who has a language impairment but whose speech does not sound unusual. What happens to these children and young people if their language problems are not recognised? The increased rates of language impairment in children facing exclusion from school and in the criminal justice system paint a gloomy picture. DLD is considered a lifelong condition, and while children’s language skills may improve, they require input from specialists to help them acquire skills and strategies to compensate for their language problems (Perkins, 2001). Clearly there are many children who finish schooling and enter services aiming to remediate mental health problems or criminal behaviours without their language problems having been detected. It is therefore important that awareness of DLD is sufficient in professions that are very likely to interact with children with DLD, including mental health and forensic professionals. Acknowledgements Geoff Bird was supported by the Baily Thomas Charitable Trust. References Anderson, S. A. S., Hawes, D. J., & Snow, P. C. (2016). Language impairments among youth offenders: A systematic review. Children and Youth Services Review, 65(April), 195–203. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2016.04.004 Antoniazzi, D., Snow, P., & Dickson-Swift, V. (2010). Teacher identification of children at risk for language impairment in the first year of school. International journal of speech-language pathology, 12(3), 244-252. Baird, G., Simonoff, E., Pickles, A., Chandler, S., Loucas, T., Meldrum, D., & Charman, T. (2006). Prevalence of disorders of the autism spectrum in a population cohort of children in South Thames: the Special Needs and Autism Project (SNAP). Lancet, 368(9531), 210–215. http://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69041-7 Bishop, D. V. M., Snowling, M. J., Thompson, P. A., Greenhalgh, T., Adams, C., Archibald, L., … Whitehouse, A. (2016). CATALISE: A multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study. Identifying language impairments in children. PLoS ONE, 11(7), 1–26. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0158753 Brownlie, E. B., Beitchman, J. H., Escobar, M., Young, A., Atkinson, L., Johnson, C., ... & Douglas, L. (2004). Early language impairment and young adult delinquent and aggressive behavior. Journal of abnormal child psychology, 32(4), 453-467. Clegg, J., Stackhouse, J., Finch, K., Murphy, C., & Nicholls, S. (2009). Language abilities of secondary age pupils at risk of schoolClegg, J., Stackhouse, J., Finch, K., Murphy, C., & Nicholls, S. (2009). Language abilities of secondary age pupils at risk of school exclusion: A preliminary report. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 25(1), 123–139. http://doi.org/10.1177/0265659008098664 Craig, H. K. (1993). Social skills of children with specific language impairment: Peer relationships. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 24(4), 206-215. Evans, J. L., & MacWhinney, B. (1999). Sentence processing strategies in children with expressive and expressive-receptive specific language impairments. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 34(2), 117-134. Fujiki, M., Brinton, B., & Clarke, D. (2002). Emotion regulation in children with specific language impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 33(2), 102-111. Hollo, A., Wehby, J. H., & Oliver, R. M. (2014). Unidentified language deficits in children with emotional and behavioral disorders: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 80(2), 169–186. http://doi.org/10.1177/001440291408000203 Horwitz, S. M. C., Irwin, J. R., Briggs-Gowan, M. J., Bosson Heenan, J. M., Mendoza, J., & Carter, A. S. (2003). Language delay in a community cohort of young children. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 42(8), 932–940. http://doi.org/10.1097/01.CHI.0000046889.27264.5E Hughes, N., Chitsabesan, P., Bryan, K., Borschmann, R., Swain, N., Lennox, C., & Shaw, J. (2017). Language impairment and comorbid vulnerabilities among young people in custody. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 58(10), 1106–1113. http://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12791 Johnson, C. J., Beitchman, J. H., & Brownlie, E. B. (2010). Twenty-year follow-up of children with and without speech-language impairments: Family, educational, occupational, and quality of life outcomes. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19(1), 51–65. http://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2009/08-0083) Naylor, M. W., Staskowski, M., Kenney, M. C., & King, C. A. (1994). Language disorders and learning disabilities in school-refusing adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 33(9), 1331-1337. Norbury, C. F., Gooch, D., Wray, C., Baird, G., Charman, T., Simonoff, E., … Pickles, A. (2016). The impact of nonverbal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder: evidence from a population study. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 57(11), 1247–1257. http://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12573 Amone-P’Olak, K., Burger, H., Ormel, J., Huisman, M., Verhulst, F. C., & Oldehinkel, A. J. (2009). Socioeconomic position and mental health problems in pre-and early-adolescents. Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology, 44(3), 231-238. Perkins, M. R. (2001). Compensatory strategies in SLI. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 15(1–2), 67–71. http://doi.org/10.1080/026992001461334 Redmond, S. M. (2011). Peer victimization among students with specific language impairment, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, and typical development. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 42(4), 520-535. Redmond, S. M., & Rice, M. L. (1998). The socioemotional behaviors of children with SLI: Social adaptation or social deviance?. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41(3), 688-700. Ripley, K., & Yuill, N. (2005). Patterns of language impairment and behaviour in boys excluded from school. The British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(Pt 1), 37–50. http://doi.org/10.1348/000709905X27696 Sattler, J. M., Feldman, J., & Bohanan, A. L. (1985). Parental estimates of children’s receptive vocabulary. Psychology in the Schools, 22(3), 303–307. http://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6807(198507)22:3<303::AID-PITS2310220312>3.0.CO;2-J Singh, G. K., & Ghandour, R. M. (2012). Impact of neighborhood social conditions and household socioeconomic status on behavioral problems among US children. Maternal and Child Health Journal, 16(SUPPL. 1), 158–169. http://doi.org/10.1007/s10995-012-1005-z Snow, P., & Powell, M. (2012). Youth (in) justice: Oral language competence in early life and risk for engagement in antisocial behaviour in adolescence. Trends and Issues in Crime and Criminal Justice, 435, 1-6. Stringer, H., & Lozano, S. (2007). Under identification of speech and language impairment in children attending a special school for children with emotional and behavioural disorders. Educational & Child Psychology, 24(4), 9–19. Talbot, J. (2007) No One Knows: Identifying and Supporting Prisoners with Learning Difficulties and Learning Disabilities. The Views of Prison Staff. London: Prison Reform Trust Wadman, R., Durkin, K., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2008). Self-esteem, shyness, and sociability in adolescents with specific language impairment (SLI). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51(4), 938-952. Keywords: developmental language disorder (DLD), Language, vulnerable population group, Mental Health, Policy & disabilities Conference: 4th International Conference on Educational Neuroscience, Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates, 10 Mar - 11 Mar, 2019. Presentation Type: Oral Presentation (invited speakers only) Topic: Educational Neuroscience Citation: Hobson HM and Bird G (2019). High rates of language impairment in vulnerable populations: the case for improving cross-sector awareness of Developmental Language Disorder.. Conference Abstract: 4th International Conference on Educational Neuroscience. doi: 10.3389/conf.fnhum.2019.229.00002 Copyright: The abstracts in this collection have not been subject to any Frontiers peer review or checks, and are not endorsed by Frontiers. They are made available through the Frontiers publishing platform as a service to conference organizers and presenters. The copyright in the individual abstracts is owned by the author of each abstract or his/her employer unless otherwise stated. Each abstract, as well as the collection of abstracts, are published under a Creative Commons CC-BY 4.0 (attribution) licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) and may thus be reproduced, translated, adapted and be the subject of derivative works provided the authors and Frontiers are attributed. For Frontiers’ terms and conditions please see https://www.frontiersin.org/legal/terms-and-conditions. Received: 08 Feb 2019; Published Online: 27 Sep 2019. * Correspondence: Dr. Hannah M Hobson, University of Greenwich, Greenwich, London, SE10 9LS, United Kingdom, H.Hobson@greenwich.ac.uk Login Required This action requires you to be registered with Frontiers and logged in. To register or login click here. Abstract Info Abstract The Authors in Frontiers Hannah M Hobson Geoffrey Bird Google Hannah M Hobson Geoffrey Bird Google Scholar Hannah M Hobson Geoffrey Bird PubMed Hannah M Hobson Geoffrey Bird Related Article in Frontiers Google Scholar PubMed Abstract Close Back to top Javascript is disabled. Please enable Javascript in your browser settings in order to see all the content on this page.