Wenche Andersen Helland

Exploring Language Profiles for Children With ADHD and Children With Asperger Syndrome

Objective: The aims of the present study was to investigate communication impairments in a Norwegian sample of children with ADHD and children with Asperger syndrome (AS) and to explore whether children with ADHD can be differentiated from children with AS in terms of their language profiles on the Norwegian adaptation of the Children’s Communication Checklist Second Edition (CCC-2). Method: The CCC-2 was completed by the parents, and altogether, 77 children aged between 6 and 15 years participated in the study. Results: Communication impairments were as common in a group of children with ADHD as in a group of children with AS. Although a similar pattern appeared on most CCC-2 scales, children with ADHD and children with AS could be distinguished from each other in terms of their language profiles on the subscales assessing stereotyped language and nonverbal communication. Conclusion: Language abilities should be taken into account when standard assessments of ADHD and AS are performed and before therapies are initiated.

Stable associations between behavioral problems and language impairments across childhood – The importance of pragmatic language problems

This study investigated language function associated with behavior problems, focusing on pragmatics. Scores on the Childrens Communication Checklist Second Edition (CCC-2) in a group of 40 adolescents (12-15 years) identified with externalizing behavior problems (BP) in childhood was compared to the CCC-2 scores in a typically developing comparison group (n=37). Behavioral, emotional and language problems were assessed by the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) and 4 language items, when the children in the BP group were 7-9 years (T1). They were then assessed with the SDQ and the CCC-2 when they were 12-15 years (T2). The BP group obtained poorer scores on 9/10 subscales on the CCC-2, and 70% showed language impairments in the clinical range. Language, emotional and peer problems at T1 were strongly correlated with pragmatic language impairments in adolescence. The findings indicate that assessment of language, especially pragmatics, is vital for follow-up and treatment of behavioral problems in children and adolescents.

The usability of a Norwegian adaptation of the Children's Communication Checklist Second Edition (CCC-2) in differentiating between language impaired and non-language impaired 6- to 12-year-olds

The aim of the present study was to evaluate if the Norwegian adaptation of the Childrens Communication Checklist-2 (CCC-2) differentiates between a language impaired and a non-language impaired population and to make a first evaluation of the psychometric qualities of the questionnaire on a Norwegian sample. A total of 153 children aged 6-12 years participated in the study (45 language impaired and 108 non-language impaired). The Norwegian adaptation of the CCC-2 distinguished language impaired from non-language impaired children and thus seems to provide a useful screening tool for communication impairments in Norwegian children. The reliability of the CCC-2 appeared to be reasonable with internal consistency values ranging from 0.73 to 0.89.

Assessment of pragmatic language impairment in children referred to psychiatric services: a pilot study of the Children's Communication Checklist in a Norwegian sample.

The aim of the present pilot study was to explore whether pragmatic language impairments are more prevalent among children referred to child psychiatric services (n=21) than among a comparison group of typically developing children (n=29) in the age range 8–10 years. A second and minor aim was also to assess the usability of a Norwegian translation of the Childrens Communication Checklist (CCC). Communication disorders defined as a pragmatic score equal to or below 140 on the CCC were identified in a majority (0.57) of the children in the clinical group; the corresponding proportion for the typically developing comparison group was only 0.10. Thus, the Norwegian version of the CCC distinguishes between children with symptoms of pragmatic language impairments and those with no symptoms, as does the English version.

Language profiles and mental health problems in children with specific language impairment and children with ADHD.

Objective: This study aimed to explore whether children with specific language impairment (SLI) and children with ADHD can be differentiated from each other in terms of their language profiles, and also to investigate whether these two clinical groups differ regarding mental health problems. Method: A total of 59 children in the age range 6 to 12 years participated in the study. The parents completed the Children’s Communication Checklist–Second Edition and the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire. Results: Communication impairments were as prominent in the ADHD group as in the SLI group; however, the groups were separable from each other in terms of their language profiles. Furthermore, the ADHD group experienced significantly more mental health problems compared with the SLI group. Conclusion: Language should be assessed in children with ADHD and instruments sensitive to ADHD should be included when assessing children with SLI. Mental health should be an area of concern to be addressed in both groups.

Language Impairments in Children With ADHD and in Children With Reading Disorder

Objective: The objective of this study was to investigate language impairments (LI) in a nonclinical sample of children with ADHD, reading disorder (RD), and ADHD + RD, and to explore whether these groups could be differentiated from each other and a control group regarding different aspects of language. Method: The groups were derived from a population-based sample of 5,672 children, 7 to 9 years. Language problems and the groups were defined from parent/teacher reports. Results: LI was identified in the majority within the ADHD + RD group and in >40% of the ADHD and RD group. More phonological and expressive language problems were seen in the RD than the ADHD group, while receptive language problems were more prominent in ADHD. More pragmatic problems were identified in the ADHD group. Conclusion: The present results support findings from clinical samples pointing to a considerable rate of LI both in children with ADHD and in children with RD.

The dynamics of narrative writing in primary grade children: Writing process factors predict story quality

Abstract In this study of third grade school children, we investigated the association between writing process measures recorded with key stroke logging and the final written product. Moreover, we examined the cognitive predictors of writing process and product measures. Analyses of key strokes showed that while most children spontaneously made local online revisions while writing, few revised previously written text. Children with good reading and spelling abilities made more online revisions than their peers. Two process factors, transcription fluency and online revision activity, contributed to explaining variance in narrative macrostructural quality and story length. As for cognitive predictors, spelling was the only factor that gave a unique contribution to explaining variance in writing process factors. Better spelling was associated with more revisions and faster transcription. The results show that developing writers’ ability to make online revisions in creative writing tasks is related to both the quality of the final written product and to individual literacy skills. More generally, the findings indicate that investigations of the dynamics of the writing process may provide insights into the factors that contribute to creative writing during early stages of literacy.

Pragmatic language impairment in children with Noonan syndrome.

ABSTRACT Noonan syndrome (NS) is a disorder causing symptoms like short stature, characteristic facial features, congenital heart disease, possible mental retardation, and pragmatic difficulties. This study describes the pragmatic skills in NS and discusses the linguistic profile of 17 informants aged 6–15 years, by comparing the participants’ scores on the Children’s Communication Checklist, 2nd edition (CCC-2) (Bishop, 2011), with a group of typically developing children of matching age and gender. Language impairments were common in the NS group. The results show that children and adolescents with NS do not have one coherent pragmatic profile. However, 76.5% of the participants displayed communication impairments, and pragmatic skills were significantly lower than in the control group.

Detecting Preschool Language Impairment and Risk of Developmental Dyslexia

ABSTRACT This study assessed and compared results from evidence-based screening tools to be filled out by caregivers to identify preschool children at risk of language impairment (LI) and dyslexia. Three different tools were used: one assessing children’s communicative abilities, one assessing risk of developmental dyslexia, and one assessing early language skills. Caregivers of 79 children filled out the schemes. A typical group (n = 51) and a risk group (n = 28) were established on the background of the cutoff scores of all three tools. As expected, there was a significant difference between the typical and the risk groups, with a moderate correlation between the tool scores. Only four children from the risk group were identified by all three tools; seven were identified by two tools, and 17 children were identified by one tool alone. These subgroups varied as to risk severity, gender, and heredity. The variations seen in the risk group are in line with large-scale studies pointing to persistent and late-onset LI. This should encourage evidence-based preschool screening by caretakers to detect early risks of LI and dyslexia. However, a longitudinal design with individual follow-up during literacy training in school would validate the use of these tools.

Self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression in chronic stroke patients with and without aphasia

ABSTRACT Background: About half of the stroke population suffers from emotional difficulties, such as anxiety and depression post-stroke. Acquiring aphasia is seen to increase the risk of developing symptoms of emotional difficulties such as anxiety and depression. Aims: The aim of the present study was to investigate self-reported emotional difficulties in chronic stroke patients with and without aphasia 1 year post-stroke. Further, we aimed to investigate the relationship between aphasia severity and self-reported symptoms of post-stroke depression and anxiety. We expected to find that patients with aphasia reported more symptoms of anxiety and depression than patients without aphasia. Furthermore, we expected to find that aphasia severity was associated with self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression. Methods & Procedures: The Norwegian Basic Aphasia Assessment (NBAA) was used to assess aphasia severity. The Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) was administered to all patients to assess self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression. To investigate group differences we used the patients’ scores on the subscales communication, ability to carry out daily activities, and ability to participate in social/leisure activities from the Stroke Impact Scale (SIS), the modified Rankin Scale (mRS), and the Mini Mental State Examination (MMSE). Outcomes & Results: There were no significant differences between the groups regarding self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression. We found a significant correlation between aphasia severity and symptoms of depression, indicating that patients with more aphasic difficulties reported more symptoms of depression. Specifically, the subscale repetition and reading comprehension from the NBAA correlated with the HADS total score. Furthermore, we found significant correlations between the patients’ performance on reading comprehension, repetition, and reading out loud and the HADS depression subscale. There was a significant difference between the groups on the SIS communication scores and the patients’ scores on the MMSE, whereas the aphasia group had more self-reported communication difficulties and a lower level of cognitive functioning 1 year post-stroke. However, on the SIS daily activities the non-aphasia group scored significantly lower. Finally, the groups did not differ on functional disability as measured by the mRS at admission to the hospital. Conclusions: Although there were no significant differences between the aphasic and non-aphasic groups as to the degree of self-reported symptoms of anxiety and depression, patients with aphasia reported symptoms of anxiety and depression that seemed to be associated with specific language problems, as the ability to repeat, and to read and comprehend words and sentences.