Differentiating SLI from ADHD using childrens sentence recall

Differentiating SLI from ADHD using children's sentence recall and production of past tense morphology Sean M. Redmond (2005) Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics

How specific are the linguistics deficits associated with SLI? Recently, the evaluation of the clinical markers for SLI has been expanded to include with other developmental language impairments, to allow us to evaluate the extent to witch the psycholinguistic profile associated with SLI is unique to SLI, or it is a common discomposure of language that is associated with many kinds of developmental language impairment.

Measurements that tap into children`s proficiencies with sentence recall, nonword repetition, and tense marking have all demonstrated high levels of specificity and sensitivity in differentiating children with SLI from their typically developing peers.

The aim of this study was to investigate whether sentence recall measures and the production of past tense morphology would reveal similarities or differences between these two clinical populations.

Language impairment in children with ADHD is the most common psychiatric disorder diagnosed in childhood, affecting 3 -5% of the school age population. The diagnosis of ADHD is based on the presence of a persistent pattern of developmentally inappropriate levels of impulsivity, inattention and hyperactivity that cause functional impairments in multiple settings.

Children with ADHD have been shown to be at risk for several markers of language impairments: • Delayed onset of first words and word combinations. • Poor performance on standardized language tests and pragmatic difficulties.

There are several hypotheses regarding the relationship between language impairments and attention disorders: • Deficit in one area may be causing or fostering deficits in the other. • Both language impairments and attention deficits may be caused by third underlying neurodevelopmental deficit.

The question should be asked is to what extent the linguistic deficits observed in some children with ADHD are in fact similar to those associated with other developmental language impairments. Do children with ADHD demonstrate difficulties in sentence recall, non word repetition, or tense marking?

In fact, very little information exists on the performance of these children on the three clinical markers of language impairment. Most of the information regarding the language skills of children with ADHD has been based on verbal IQ scores and other inclusive language achievement tests.

Collectively, these investigations suggest that working memory deficits can be expected in many children with ADHD, including poor performance on sentence recall measures (Barkley, 1997; Cohen et al. , 1989, 1993, 1998, 2000; Kim and Kaiser, 2000; Love and Thompson, 1988; Purvis and Tannock, 1997; Tannock and Schachar, 1996; Tirosh and Cohen, 1997).

Questions directing the current study 1. Do children with ADHD show deficits in sentence recall and the production of tense morphology? 2. Are the differences between children with SLI and ADHD on these measures more a matter of degree or do qualitatively profiles emerge?

Method

participants All of the participants were monolingual speakers of English and demonstrated normal levels of hearing acuity, non verbal achievements, and speech production skills.

Table 1

Each participant completed the following assessment protocol: a. A parental questionnaire, documenting the participant`s developmental, academic, and family histories and current of service receipt. b. A hearing screening establishing normal hearing acuity. c. The Columbia Mental Maturity scale. d. A phonological screening, verifying consistent use of word final –s, -z, -t and –d.

e. The test of Language Development Primary-3 rd Edition. f. The Child Behavior Checklist documenting the participant`s behavioral status.

SLI group children needed to demonstrate the following characteristics: a. Diagnosis of language impairment by a certified speech language pathologist and receipt of services at the time of the study. b. A performance below 1. 0 SD on at least two of the six core subtests from the tests of TOLD-P 3. c. No existence of other diagnosis like autism, PDD, or ADHD.

ADHD group Children needed to demonstrate the following characteristics: a. A diagnosis of ADHD by licensed psychiatric or clinical psychologist and receipt of services at the time of the study. b. A behavioral rating greater than 1. 0 SD above the mean on the Attention Problems sub-scale of the CBCL. c. No existence of other diagnosis like autism, PDD, language impairment, phonological disorder or learning/reading disability.

TD group • TD participants were involved in after-school and day-care programs in the same communities as the children in the other two groups. • Children included in the TD group presented with unremarkable developmental and educational histories. • were not receiving any special or remedial services at the time of the study. • scored within normal limits on each of the standardized measures of verbal, non verbal and behavioral performance used in this study.

procedures In addition to the assessment protocol, participants experimental in the tasks study completed measuring their sentence recall and production of the past tense morphology. Children`s responses were recorded online.

• Two measures of sentence recall performance were collected: 1) Sentence imitation subtest of TOLD-P 3 (Newcomer and Hammill, 1997) provides a norm referenced measure of children`s ability to repeat sentences of increasing length and grammatical complexity.

Like most standardized measures of sentence recall, children`s responses are recorded as either “correct” or “incorrect” and a ceiling procedure is used to discontinue item administration. 2) In order to insure an equal number of items across groups and to examine more closely the errors children produced, an experimental sentence recall probe was developed consisting of 16 sentences.

The stimuli sentences were each composed of ten words (representing ten to 14 syllables) and contained an equal number of active and passive sentences. This particular stimuli length and these specific sentence types were chosen to insure that children in the typically developing group would produce enough errors during the task to permit group comparisons.

Sentence Recall Probe 1. The big football player washed the car with the hose. 2. All of the pictures were coloured by his little sister. 3. The rose bushes were planted yesterday by the girl scouts. 4. The happy little girl kicked the ball over the fence. 5. His little brother cleaned the dirty dishes and cups. 6. A special cage was made to hold the dangerous animals. 7. Everybody in my school coloured Easter eggs for the picnic. 8. A new hole was dug for the kid`s swimming pool.

9. Only the first graders made a birdhouse for their parents. 10. My little sister`s dog caught the ball on the first bounce. 11. The soccer ball was kicked into the school`s parking lot. 12. The lion`s teeth were cleaned with a giant tooth brush. 13. Some of the kids dug holes in the sand two feet deep. 14. The little white mouse was caught by our neighbor's cat. 15. The second grade students planted coconuts in the garden. 16. The dirty clothes were washed with soap one more time.

Children`s production of past tense morphology was measured using the past tense elicitation procedure developed by Rice and her colleagues (Rice, Wexler and Cleave, 1995; Wexler and Hershberger, 1998).

A picture representing a person engaged in an ongoing action followed by a second picture showing the action completed was presented to each participant. The examiner then instructed the participant to tell them what the person in the picture did. Complete sentences containing eleven different regular verbs and eight irregular verbs were elicited (Rice et al. , 1995).

Results

table 2

Figure 1. Box-plots for TOLDP-3 sentence imitation standard scores, displaying group medians, first and third quartiles, 10 th and 90 th percentiles, outliers (0) and extreme scores (*). As we can see in figure 1, an outlier was observed within the ADHD group and an extreme score was presented within the TD group on the TOLD-P 3 sub test.

Figure 2. Box-plots for sentence recall probe total correct, displaying group medians, first and third quartiles, 10 th and 90 th percentiles, outliers (0) and extreme scores (*).

Figure 3. Box-plots for sentence recall probe total number of errors produced, displaying group medians, first and third quartiles, 10 th and 90 th percentiles, outliers (0) and extreme scores (*). Extreme scores were observed in the ADHD and TD groups on the measure of total errors produced during the recall probe. In this case, children`s performances were closer to the SLI group median their respective group medians.

These results suggest that deficits in sentence recall were generally characteristic of both groups of affected children, and that differences between SLI and ADHD groups of children on this measure were more a matter of degree, with children in the SLI group demonstrating relatively greater difficulty with these tasks and producing more errors than children in the ADHD group. However, within group variation was also large, especially within ADHD group.

Children`s productions of regular verb targets and irregular verbs targets were considered separately . Table 3 : group means and standard deviations for regular verbs marked for tense Group M SD SLI 0. 55 0. 48 ADHD 0. 97 0. 04 TD 0. 97 0. 04

Figure 4. Box-plots for proportion of regular verbs marked for tense, displaying group medians, first and third quartiles, 10 th and 90 th percentiles, outliers (0) and extreme scores (*). Considerable variation were present within the SLI group but that near-uniformly high levels of past tense marking were present within both ADHD and TD groups. There were two outliers within the ADHD group, but even in these cases, their performances were still considerably higher than the median performance of the SLI group.

Children`s production of irregular verbs were considered in two different ways. Following the analytical procedures outlined in Rice, Wexler, Marquis and Hershberger`s (2000) study of the acquisition of irregular verbs, a proportion of irregular verbs responses marked for tense was calculated for each participant. Under this analysis, both irregular past tense and overregularized past tense forms were considered “correct” (e. g. she fell into the net and she falled into the net) and unmarked bare stem or nonfinite forms were considered “incorrect” (e. g. she fall into the net).

This calculation yields an estimate of how often children chose to mark tense on irregular verbs, regardless of whether or not it was correctly marked.

Table 4: group means and standard deviations for irregular verbs marked for tense Group M SD SLI 0. 60 0. 35 ADHD 0. 97 0. 06 TD 0. 98 0. 05

Figure 5. Box-plots for proportion of irregular verbs marked for tense, displaying group medians, first and third quartiles, 10 th and 90 th percentiles, outliers (0) and extreme scores (*). Box-plots for the proportion of irregular verbs marked for tense mirror quite closely those produced for regular verbs marked for tense, including the presence of the same outliers within the ADHD and TD groups. This suggests that these two measures tapped into the same mechanisms of linguistic maturation.

From a morphological standpoint, this outcome is somewhat surprising given that the operations of past tense marking are quite different between regular and irregular verbs. In the first case, past tense is marked with the inclusion of the brief, unstressed, suffix -ed to the bare stem and in the second, various irregular alternations are involved, many of which include highly salient internal vowel changes. This result is consistent, however, with the morphosyntactic framework offered by Wexler (1994) and Rice and Wexler (1996).

Under this account, the free and bound morphemes involved in tense marking in English (i. e. the regular past tense -ed, the irregular past tense forms, the regular third person singular present tense -s, the irregular third person singular, the copula BE, the auxiliary BE and other auxiliary forms) develop as a coherent set representing the maturation of children’s appreciation that the grammatical feature of tense is an obligatory aspect of main clauses.

For each participant, the proportion of their irregular verb responses that represented over-regularization calculated. errors was also

Table 5: group means and standard deviations for children`s productions of over-regularized irregular verbs (group differences were not significant) Group M SD SLI 0. 25 0. 21 ADHD 0. 32 0. 34 TD 0. 35 0. 27

As the box-plots in figure 6 illustrate, considerable overlap was present across the three groups on this measure. This suggests that overregularization errors offer little diagnostic information for children between the ages of 5 to 8 years. This result also suggests that we cannot attribute the problems that children with SLI have with the production of past tense morphology to a general limitation in knowing or applying the morphological mechanisms associated with indicating tense.

Discussion

Important similarities and differences were noted between the SLI and ADHD groups of children. Both clinical groups performed significantly poorer than the typically developing controls on measures of sentence recall. In particular, children in the SLI group found these tasks especially challenging. 1. These results suggest that some overlap may exists between SLI and ADHD in the areas of working memory/language processing. 2. ADHD children did poorly on the sentence recall task were more as a result of problems these children have with distractibility/impulsivity than an internalized problem with working memory/ language processing.

Errors in the production of past tense morphology characterized only children with SLI. • Children with SLI produced more bare stems with both regular and irregular verbs than children in the ADHD and TD groups. All three groups, however, demonstrated similar levels of over-regularization errors, suggesting that only bare stem errors or non-finite forms have any diagnostic value.

Sentence recall tasks have long been used by speech clinicians to screen children for potential language impairments. Sentence recall does not necessarily reflect children`s performance during spontaneous productions. Sentence recall has been shown to be sensitive to subtle, sub clinical deficits that might persist in some older children with language impairment.

• The extent to which sentence recall could be used to differentiate children with ADHD from children with SLI, however, is less clear. • Differentiation of SLI from ADHD was much clearer for the past tense morphology production task. This suggests that an assessment of children’s command of tense marking should be included in protocols used by speech clinicians and mental health care professionals to differentially diagnosis SLI and ADHD.