The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Risk markers for SLI: A study of young language-learning children
Abstract
Background: Adequate assessment of ‘normal variation’ versus ‘abnormal status’ is particularly difficult for clinicians working with young children who are under 5 years of age and who present with slow language development. There is therefore clinical motivation to identify possible key difficulties (or ‘risk markers’) that may distinguish children who are likely to have specific language impairment (SLI) from the variation observed in younger, normally developing children. Aims: The issue of ‘risk markers’ for SLI was explored. It is well known that the issue of markers is controversial. The view presented here is that a risk marker represents a symptom with no assumption about whether the symptom reflects a single cause or that this symptom alone identifies the disorder. Methods and Procedures: The performance of 32 children with SLI was compared with that of 32 younger normal language‐learning children on four potential risk marker tasks: non‐word repetition, digit recall, past tense provision and plural marking. Outcomes and Results: The findings suggest that processing markers, particularly non‐word repetition, have the potential for indicating SLI risk. In particular, children who fall in the bottom quarter of the normal distribution in non‐word repetition (performance below the 25th centile) appear to be at risk of SLI. Conclusions: Although these results need to be interpreted cautiously, the evidence is thought to warrant the use of non‐word repetition tasks in clinical practice.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“as for non-word repetition, the results were not sufficiently consistent across different studies, so it cannot be considered as an accurate diagnostic tool if used individually”
From Developmental Language Disorder: Early Predictors, Age for the Diagnosis, and Diagnostic Tools. A Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [156]
Citations
Cites
Lord, C., Risi, S., Lambrecht, L., Cook, E. H., Leventhal, B. L., DiLavore, P. C., Pickles, A., & Rutter, M. (2000) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1023/a:1005592401947 · Cited by 7,520
Individual differences in working memory and reading
Daneman, M., & Carpenter, P. A. (1980) · Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0022-5371(80)90312-6 · Cited by 6,336
Social cognition, joint attention, and communicative competence from 9 to 15 months of age.
Carpenter, M., Nagell, K., Tomasello, M., Butterworth, G., & Moore, C. (1998) · Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development · doi:10.2307/1166214 · Cited by 2,727
Children with Specific Language Impairment
Leonard, L. B. (2014) · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9152.001.0001 · Cited by 2,619
The phonological loop as a language learning device.
Baddeley, A., Gathercole, S., & Papagno, C. (1998) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.105.1.158 · Cited by 2,199
Joint Attention and Early Language
Tomasello, M., & Farrar, M. J. (1986) · Child Development · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1986.tb00470.x · Cited by 1,936
Joint attention and early language
Tomasello, M., & Farrar, M. J. (1986) · Child Development · doi:10.2307/1130423 · Cited by 1,822
Phonological memory deficits in language disordered children: Is there a causal connection?
Gathercole, S. E., & Baddeley, A. D. (1990) · Journal of Memory and Language · doi:10.1016/0749-596x(90)90004-j · Cited by 1,487
The emergence of symbols: cognition and communication in infancy
Gillis, S. A. (1983) · Journal of Pragmatics · doi:10.1016/0378-2166(83)90154-6 · Cited by 1,436
A longitudinal study of joint attention and language development in autistic children
Mundy, P., Sigman, M., & Kasari, C. (1990) · Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/bf02206861 · Cited by 1,119
Research works printed but not linked: 5
- BATES E., 1980, Gestural and vocal symbols at 13 month, Marrill-Palmer Quarterly, 26, 407
- CHARMAN T., 2000, Understanding Other Minds: Perspectives from Autism and Developmental Cognitive Neuroscience, 422
- GRIFFITHS R., 1986, The Abilities of Babies
- REYNELL J. K., 1985, Reynell Development Language Scales
- WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION, 1993, Mental Disorders: A Glossary and Guide to their Classification in Accordance with the 10th Revision of the International Classification of Diseases: Research Diagnostic Criteria (ICD‐10)
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Nonword repetition and word learning: The nature of the relationship
Gathercole, S. E. (2006) · Applied Psycholinguistics · doi:10.1017/s0142716406060383 · Cited by 959
“…with SLI have marked deficits in the repetition of multisyllabic nonwords (e.g., Archibald & Gathercole, in press-a; Botting & Conti-Ramsden, 2001; Conti-Ramsden & Hesketh, 2003; Dollaghan & Campbell, 1998; Ellis Weismer et al., 2000; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990b; Gray, 2003; Kamhi & Catts, 1986;…”
BackgroundEstes, K. G., Evans, J. L., & Else-Quest, N. M. (2007) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/015 · Cited by 430
Coady, J. A., & Evans, J. L. (2008) · International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · doi:10.1080/13682820601116485 · Cited by 432
Individual differences in online spoken word recognition: Implications for SLI
McMurray, B., Samelson, V. M., Lee, S. H., & Tomblin, J. B. (2009) · Cognitive Psychology · doi:10.1016/j.cogpsych.2009.06.003 · Cited by 277
“Second, a number of studies have shown that children with SLI have poor phonological working memory (see for instance, Bishop, 2006; Conti-Ramsden & Hesketh, 2003; Gathercole & Baddeley, 1990).”
BackgroundStokes, S. F., Wong, A. M.-Y., Fletcher, P. J., & Leonard, L. B. (2006) · Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research · doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/019 · Cited by 258
Metadata
- Authors
- Conti‐Ramsden, G., & Hesketh, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Conti‐Ramsden, Gina
- Venue
- International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2003-07-09
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 251-263
- ISSN
- 1368-2822 (ISSN-L)
- 1460-6984
- OpenAlex
- W1980026321
- Cited by
- 129
- References
- 84
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 3 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 1 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 7.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Wellcome Trust
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
- Keywords
- specific language impairment, risk indicators, non-word repetition, digit recall, plural marking, language processing, young children, language assessment, normal variation
- MeSH terms
- Child, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Language Development Disorders, Language Tests, Male, Case-Control Studies, Risk Assessment
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
