Abstract
Background: Developmental language disorder is a heterogeneous diagnostic category. Little research has compared the long‐term outcomes of children with different subtypes of language impairment.
Aims: To determine whether the pattern of language impairment in childhood related to language and literacy outcomes in adulthood.
Methods & Procedures: Adults who took part in previous studies as children were traced. There were four groups of participants, each with a different childhood diagnosis: specific language impairment (SLI; n = 19, mean age at follow‐up = 24;8), pragmatic language impairment (PLI; n = 7, mean age at follow‐up = 22;3), autism spectrum disorder (ASD; n = 11; mean age at follow‐up = 21;9), and no childhood diagnosis (typical; n = 12; mean age at follow‐up = 21;6). Participants were administered a battery of language and literacy tests.
Outcomes & Results: Adults with a history of SLI had persisting language impairment as well as considerable literacy difficulties. Pragmatic deficits also appeared to develop over time in these individuals. The PLI group had enduring difficulties with language use, but presented with relatively intact language and literacy skills. Although there were some similarities in the language profile of the PLI and ASD groups, the ASD group was found to have more severe pragmatic deficits and parent‐reported linguistic difficulties in conversational speech.
Conclusions & Implications: The pattern of deficits observed in different subtypes of developmental language disorder persists into adulthood. The findings highlight the importance of a wide‐ranging clinical assessment in childhood, which may provide an indication of outcome in adulthood.
Notes
Notes
1. There are a number of recognized subtypes of developmental language disorder, including phonological disorder, expressive language disorder, and mixed receptive/expressive language disorder. Note, however, that the current study is concerned with the broader discrimination between these ‘linguistic’ difficulties (structural language impairment) and social language problems (pragmatic language impairment).
2. The ADI‐R is a semi‐structured parent interview conducted by trained examiners (in the current study, H. F., D. B. and A. W.), which asks for information about their child's behavioural development, with a particular focus on the period between 4 and 5 years of age. Parents' responses are coded and then converted to numerical scores, which provide the basis for determining whether individuals exceed the designated cut‐off for an autism diagnosis. All participants reclassified into the autism group met this threshold in each of the three ‘autistic’ domains (communication, socialization, repetitive behaviour). The ADI‐R is not conventionally used as a retrospective diagnostic tool and there are limitations to this approach (for example, contamination of parent recall). For more information about this procedure, including its limitations, see Bishop et al. (Citation2008).
3. Three participants included in Bishop et al. (2008) were excluded from the current report as they were under 16 years at follow‐up.
4. Please note, these scales were constructed for this study only, and are not typically used with the CC‐A.