Developmental dyslexia: predicting individual risk / Paul A. THOMPSON in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 56-9 (September 2015)  

Public ISBD [article]  inJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry > 56-9 (September 2015) . - p.976-987 Titre : Developmental dyslexia: predicting individual risk Type de document : Texte imprimé et/ou numérique Auteurs : Paul A. THOMPSON, Auteur ; Charles HULME, Auteur ; Hannah M. NASH, Auteur ; Debbie GOOCH, Auteur ; Emma HAYIOU-THOMAS, Auteur ; Margaret J. SNOWLING, Auteur Article en page(s) : p.976-987 Langues : Anglais (eng) Mots-clés : Familial (family) risk  dyslexia  reading disability  language skills  executive motor  early identification Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : Background Causal theories of dyslexia suggest that it is a heritable disorder, which is the outcome of multiple risk factors. However, whether early screening for dyslexia is viable is not yet known. Methods The study followed children at high risk of dyslexia from preschool through the early primary years assessing them from age 3 years and 6 months (T1) at approximately annual intervals on tasks tapping cognitive, language, and executive-motor skills. The children were recruited to three groups: children at family risk of dyslexia, children with concerns regarding speech, and language development at 3;06 years and controls considered to be typically developing. At 8 years, children were classified as ‘dyslexic’ or not. Logistic regression models were used to predict the individual risk of dyslexia and to investigate how risk factors accumulate to predict poor literacy outcomes. Results Family-risk status was a stronger predictor of dyslexia at 8 years than low language in preschool. Additional predictors in the preschool years include letter knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming, and executive skills. At the time of school entry, language skills become significant predictors, and motor skills add a small but significant increase to the prediction probability. We present classification accuracy using different probability cutoffs for logistic regression models and ROC curves to highlight the accumulation of risk factors at the individual level. Conclusions Dyslexia is the outcome of multiple risk factors and children with language difficulties at school entry are at high risk. Family history of dyslexia is a predictor of literacy outcome from the preschool years. However, screening does not reach an acceptable clinical level until close to school entry when letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and RAN, rather than family risk, together provide good sensitivity and specificity as a screening battery. En ligne : http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12412 Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=267 [article] Developmental dyslexia: predicting individual risk [Texte imprimé et/ou numérique] / Paul A. THOMPSON, Auteur ; Charles HULME, Auteur ; Hannah M. NASH, Auteur ; Debbie GOOCH, Auteur ; Emma HAYIOU-THOMAS, Auteur ; Margaret J. SNOWLING, Auteur . - p.976-987. Langues : Anglais (eng) in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry > 56-9 (September 2015) . - p.976-987 Mots-clés : Familial (family) risk  dyslexia  reading disability  language skills  executive motor  early identification Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : Background Causal theories of dyslexia suggest that it is a heritable disorder, which is the outcome of multiple risk factors. However, whether early screening for dyslexia is viable is not yet known. Methods The study followed children at high risk of dyslexia from preschool through the early primary years assessing them from age 3 years and 6 months (T1) at approximately annual intervals on tasks tapping cognitive, language, and executive-motor skills. The children were recruited to three groups: children at family risk of dyslexia, children with concerns regarding speech, and language development at 3;06 years and controls considered to be typically developing. At 8 years, children were classified as ‘dyslexic’ or not. Logistic regression models were used to predict the individual risk of dyslexia and to investigate how risk factors accumulate to predict poor literacy outcomes. Results Family-risk status was a stronger predictor of dyslexia at 8 years than low language in preschool. Additional predictors in the preschool years include letter knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid automatized naming, and executive skills. At the time of school entry, language skills become significant predictors, and motor skills add a small but significant increase to the prediction probability. We present classification accuracy using different probability cutoffs for logistic regression models and ROC curves to highlight the accumulation of risk factors at the individual level. Conclusions Dyslexia is the outcome of multiple risk factors and children with language difficulties at school entry are at high risk. Family history of dyslexia is a predictor of literacy outcome from the preschool years. However, screening does not reach an acceptable clinical level until close to school entry when letter knowledge, phonological awareness, and RAN, rather than family risk, together provide good sensitivity and specificity as a screening battery. En ligne : http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12412 Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=267

Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology / Dorothy V. M. BISHOP in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 58-10 (October 2017)  

Public ISBD [article]  inJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry > 58-10 (October 2017) . - p.1068-1080 Titre : Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology Type de document : Texte imprimé et/ou numérique Auteurs : Dorothy V. M. BISHOP, Auteur ; Margaret J. SNOWLING, Auteur ; Paul A. THOMPSON, Auteur ; Trisha GREENHALGH, Auteur ; CATALISE-CONSORTIUM,, Auteur Article en page(s) : p.1068-1080 Langues : Anglais (eng) Mots-clés : Developmental language disorder  specific language impairment  terminology  risk factors  definitions Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : Background Lack of agreement about criteria and terminology for children's language problems affects access to services as well as hindering research and practice. We report the second phase of a study using an online Delphi method to address these issues. In the first phase, we focused on criteria for language disorder. Here we consider terminology. Methods The Delphi method is an iterative process in which an initial set of statements is rated by a panel of experts, who then have the opportunity to view anonymised ratings from other panel members. On this basis they can either revise their views or make a case for their position. The statements are then revised based on panel feedback, and again rated by and commented on by the panel. In this study, feedback from a second round was used to prepare a final set of statements in narrative form. The panel included 57 individuals representing a range of professions and nationalities. Results We achieved at least 78% agreement for 19 of 21 statements within two rounds of ratings. These were collapsed into 12 statements for the final consensus reported here. The term ‘Language Disorder’ is recommended to refer to a profile of difficulties that causes functional impairment in everyday life and is associated with poor prognosis. The term, ‘Developmental Language Disorder’ (DLD) was endorsed for use when the language disorder was not associated with a known biomedical aetiology. It was also agreed that (a) presence of risk factors (neurobiological or environmental) does not preclude a diagnosis of DLD, (b) DLD can co-occur with other neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g. ADHD) and (c) DLD does not require a mismatch between verbal and nonverbal ability. Conclusions This Delphi exercise highlights reasons for disagreements about terminology for language disorders and proposes standard definitions and nomenclature. En ligne : http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12721 Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=321 [article] Phase 2 of CATALISE: a multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology [Texte imprimé et/ou numérique] / Dorothy V. M. BISHOP, Auteur ; Margaret J. SNOWLING, Auteur ; Paul A. THOMPSON, Auteur ; Trisha GREENHALGH, Auteur ; CATALISE-CONSORTIUM,, Auteur . - p.1068-1080. Langues : Anglais (eng) in Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry > 58-10 (October 2017) . - p.1068-1080 Mots-clés : Developmental language disorder  specific language impairment  terminology  risk factors  definitions Index. décimale : PER Périodiques Résumé : Background Lack of agreement about criteria and terminology for children's language problems affects access to services as well as hindering research and practice. We report the second phase of a study using an online Delphi method to address these issues. In the first phase, we focused on criteria for language disorder. Here we consider terminology. Methods The Delphi method is an iterative process in which an initial set of statements is rated by a panel of experts, who then have the opportunity to view anonymised ratings from other panel members. On this basis they can either revise their views or make a case for their position. The statements are then revised based on panel feedback, and again rated by and commented on by the panel. In this study, feedback from a second round was used to prepare a final set of statements in narrative form. The panel included 57 individuals representing a range of professions and nationalities. Results We achieved at least 78% agreement for 19 of 21 statements within two rounds of ratings. These were collapsed into 12 statements for the final consensus reported here. The term ‘Language Disorder’ is recommended to refer to a profile of difficulties that causes functional impairment in everyday life and is associated with poor prognosis. The term, ‘Developmental Language Disorder’ (DLD) was endorsed for use when the language disorder was not associated with a known biomedical aetiology. It was also agreed that (a) presence of risk factors (neurobiological or environmental) does not preclude a diagnosis of DLD, (b) DLD can co-occur with other neurodevelopmental disorders (e.g. ADHD) and (c) DLD does not require a mismatch between verbal and nonverbal ability. Conclusions This Delphi exercise highlights reasons for disagreements about terminology for language disorders and proposes standard definitions and nomenclature. En ligne : http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12721 Permalink : https://www.cra-rhone-alpes.org/cid/opac_css/index.php?lvl=notice_display&id=321

---

1 (1 - 2 / 2)