Stage 1 Registered Report: The relationship between handedness and language ability in children.

Verena E Pritchard,Dorothy V.M Bishop,Stephanie A Malone,Kelly Burgoyne,Michelle Heron-Delaney,Charles Hulme

doi:10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15077.1

Verena E Pritchard, Dorothy V.M Bishop + Show 4 more

Open Access

https://doi.org/10.12688/wellcomeopenres.15077.1

Copy DOI

Abstract

Weak or inconsistent hand preference may be a risk factor for developmental language delay. This study will test the extent to which variations in language skills are associated with the strength of hand preference. Data are drawn from a large sample (n = 569) of 6- to 7-year-old children unselected for ability, assessed at two time points, 6 months apart. Hand preference is assessed using the Quantitative Hand Preference task (QHP) and five uni-manual motor tasks. Language skills (expressive and receptive vocabulary, receptive grammar, and morphological awareness) are assessed with standardized measures. If weak cerebral lateralisation (as assessed by the QHP task) is a risk factor for language difficulties, it should be possible to detect such effects in the large representative sample of children examined here.

Highlights

Weak or inconsistent hand preference may be a risk factor for developmental language delay
Much of the early evidence for cerebral lateralisation came from studies of adult stroke patients which showed that damage to the left hemisphere is more commonly associated with language deficits than damage to the right hemisphere (Benson & Ardila, 1996; Damasio, 1992; Geschwind, 1971; Kertesz & McCabe, 1977)
If the development of cerebral lateralisation is critical for the development of language, handedness might be expected to relate to developmental language difficulties (Annett, 2002; Bishop, 2013; Bishop et al, 2014)

Summary

Introduction

Weak or inconsistent hand preference may be a risk factor for developmental language delay. Some of these studies have found evidence for differences in language laterality in children with language difficulties (Developmental Language Disorder (DLD); see Wilson & Bishop, 2018 for a review). Other studies by Bishop and colleagues that have used the QHP with larger samples (i.e., Bishop, 2001; Bishop, 2005; Hill & Bishop, 1998) do indicate that the QHP is generally more successful than traditional hand preference inventories such as the Edinburgh Handedness Inventory (Oldfield, 1971) in differentiating between children with specific language impairment and age matched controls.

Results

Conclusion