Session 6: Language Development and Use
Exploring the Receptive Language Abilities of Students with Down Syndrome
Emma Conradi1, Susan Loveall1, & Frances Conners2
Contact: econradi2@huskers.unl.edu
Background: One of the most cited phenotypic characteristics in Down syndrome (DS) is delayed language; however, this pattern includes both relative strengths (e.g., vocabulary) and difficulties (e.g., morphosyntax) (Martin et al., 2009). Despite this often-repeated pattern, there is little research on the language abilities of individuals with Mosaic Down syndrome (M-DS).
Research Questions: 1) What are the language abilities of youth with DS, considering those with Full Trisomy 21 (F-DS) and M-DS? and 2) How do the language abilities of these individuals compare to those of typically developing (TD) peers with similar nonverbal ability levels?
Method: Because the group with M-DS (n=8, M age = 14.57 years) had higher nonverbal ability scores than the group with F-DS (n=32, M age = 13.97 years), the two groups with DS were compared to separate, but overlapping, groups of younger TD peers. Overall language comprehension, receptive vocabulary, syntax, and morphology were measured through standardized assessments. Raw and growth scores were used in analyses.
Results: For Aim 1, the group with F-DS had lower average scores than the group with M-DS across all language outcomes. For Aim 2, the ANCOVAs comparing F-DS versus TD were all significant (p's < .01) with medium to large effects (in each case TD > F-DS). In contrast, the only statistically significant difference between the group with M-DS and their TD comparison was on overall language scores, with a large effect (TD > M-DS).
Conclusion: As expected, both groups with DS showed overall language comprehension difficulties relative to the TD groups; however, the two groups showed slightly different patterns of difficulty across the language comprehension outcomes. The sample with M-DS was very small, however, and more research is needed to fully understand the language profile of individuals with M-DS and if and how this differs from individuals with F-DS.
References
Martin, G. E., Klusek, J., Estigarribia, B., & Roberts, J. E. (2009). Language characteristics of individuals with down syndrome. Topics in Language Disorders, 29(2), 112–132. https://doi.org/10.1097/tld.0b013e3181a71fe1
- University of Nebraska-Lincoln
- University of Alabama
Variability of Language Comprehension Assessments used with Adolescents and Adults with Down Syndrome
Kendall Willemsa, Melinda Hensona, Susan J. Lovealla, Frances A. Connersb
Kwillems-cygan2@huskers.unl.edu
Background:
Individuals with Down syndrome often experience difficulties developing language skills, and syntax in particular.1,2 Researchers and practitioners need language comprehension measures that demonstrate variability in order to accurately identify areas of strength and weakness and to develop targeted interventions for individuals with Down syndrome.3 However, standardized assessments often present with floor effects when used with individuals with Down syndrome, limiting variability in scores and hiding true differences in language abilities.4
Research Questions:
Our aims were to (1) describe the variability of standardized language comprehension assessments in a sample of participants with Down syndrome, including variability of each assessment and floor effects, and (2) evaluate correlations among each assessments' raw scores, age, and IQ.
Method:
Our sample included 24 participants with Down syndrome (mean age of 24.5) and assessed four standardized receptive language assessment subtests (OWLS-2, CASL-2, TACL-4, PPVT-4).
Results:
For Aim 1, raw scores were: (1) OWLS-2 M=50.3, SD=19.1, range=9-77; (2) CASL-2 M=25.4, SD=11.3, range=2-39; (3) TACL-4 M=27.6, SD=10.3, range=9-45; and (4) PPVT-4 M=122.3, SD=31.4, range=55-185 (n=23). Standard scores were: (1) OWLS-2 M=42.2, SD=4.3, range=40-53; (2) CASL-2 M=40, SD=0, range=40-40; (3) TACL-4 not available for included age range; and (4) PPVT-4 M=51.8, SD=16.6, range=20-82. Floor effects were observed on the OWLS-2 (70%) and the CASL-2 (100%).
For Aim 2, all measures significantly correlated with each other (r's=.49-.87), chronological age significantly correlated with the PPVT-4 (r=.49), and IQ significantly correlated with all measures except the TACL-4 (r's=.54-.75).
Conclusion:
Our review suggests that commonly used standardized language comprehension assessments are, as expected, highly correlated but fail to capture the true variability of language skills of individuals with Down syndrome. Professionals working with individuals with Down syndrome should be aware of these limitations, and future research should identify ways to capture greater variability in language comprehension scores for individuals with Down syndrome.
References
Abbeduto, L., Warren, S. F., & Conners, F. A. (2007). Language development in Down syndrome: From the prelinguistic period to the acquisition of literacy. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13(3), 247–261.
Martin, G. E., Klusek, J., Estigarribia, B., & Roberts, J. E. (2009). Language characteristics of individuals with Down syndrome. Topics in Language Disorders, 29(2), 112–132.
Loveall, S.J., Channell, M.M., Mattie, L.J., & Barkhimer, A.E. (2022). Inclusion of individuals with neurodevelopmental disorders in norm-referenced language assessments. Frontiers in Psychology.
Esbensen, A. J., Hooper, S. R., Fidler, D., Hartley, S. L., Edgin, J., d'Ardhuy, X. L., et al. (2017). Outcome measures for clinical trials in Down syndrome. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 122, 247–281.
- University of Nebraska-Lincoln
- University of Alabama
Interactions between friends with and without Down syndrome.
Susan Foster-Cohen, University of Canterbury, New Zealand
susan.foster-cohen@canterbury.ac.nz
This presentation will report on a pilot project that explored the language used by two primary school-aged children with Down syndrome each interacting with a neurotypical same-aged friend. Two twelve-year olds and two eight-year-olds were audio- and video-recorded playing at home. Two hours of recordings were made with each pair across two sessions. Although both children with Down syndrome tested significantly below age levels on standardised language tests, they used their linguistic and non-linguistic resources to great effect in the conversations. They actively negotiated their participation in the conversations by initiating, developing and maintaining topics of conversation based on the materials as well as on activities that had been established prior to the project. They asked questions, made suggestions, asked for clarification, engaged in the exchange of metalinguistic and metacognitive ideas, expressed both agreement and disagreement with each other, and expressed their feelings about both the activities and the relationship with their friend. Both pairs actively engaged in imaginative role-play (playing pirates, inventing dialogues for toy people, etc.) with both participants using language appropriate to these fictitious roles. Quantitative analysis revealed both similarities and differences in how language was used by the child with Down syndrome and the one without. For example, while there were significant differences in utterance complexity and number of questions asked, type-token ratios of word use were similar within each pair, as was percentage of questions answered. Importantly the children without Down syndrome did not correct the language errors made by the child with Down syndrome or use overly didactic language. The children without Down syndrome did, however, use mature strategies to ensure that they got what they wanted out of the play without undermining the positivity of the interactions.
