CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 116Language Development and DisordersNeurobiology of Language and BilingualismReading and Literacy Development

Is Specific Language Impairment a valid diagnostic category? Genetic and psycholinguistic evidence

Bishop, D. V. M.·1994·Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
DOI 10.1098/rstb.1994.0134
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Specific language impairment (SLI) is diagnosed when a child fails to develop language normally for no apparent reason: hearing and intelligence are adequate and the social environment is unexceptional. Definitions of SLI typically specify that the child must have a substantial discrepancy between language ability and non-verbal IQ. However, data from a twin study question the validity of this requirement, and indicate that SLI is not genetically distinct from less specific disorders where language impairment occurs in the context of low average or borderline non-verbal ability. A second question concerns the heterogeneous language symptoms seen in SLI: do these correspond to distinct conditions, or to different phenotypic manifestations of a common underlying disorder, or are they merely random variations resulting from unreliable assessments? The last of these possibilities is ruled out by the finding that twins who are concordant for language disorder show good agreement in terms of the pattern of language impairment. However, systematic variation in the age and ability of children in different SLI subgroups suggest that these may correspond to variable manifestations of a core inherited language disorder, rather than distinct diagnostic entities.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rstb.1994.0134

Cites

23 of 23 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The possibility of diagnostic bias is enhanced by ambiguity in the cut-offs used for diagnosis: 1 SD, 1.25 SDs, 1.5 SDs, or 2 SDs below the expected mean.

    “The possibility of diagnostic bias is further enhanced by another ambiguity in the available literature that concerns different cut-offs used for the diagnosis: 1 standard deviation (SD), 1.25 SDs, 1.5 SDs, or 2 SDs below the expected mean [53,54,55,56,57,58].”

    From Developmental Language Disorder: Early Predictors, Age for the Diagnosis, and Diagnostic Tools. A Scoping Review (2021) · cites this paper as [54]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Bishop, D. V. M.
Affiliations
MRC Applied Psychology Unit, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge CB2 2EF, U. K.
Corresponding author
Bishop, D. V. M.
ORCID
Bishop, D. V. M.
Venue
Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B: Biological Sciences
Publisher
The Royal Society
Published
1994-10-29
Volume
346
Issue
1315
Pages
105-111
ISSN
  • 0962-8436 (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-2970
DOI
10.1098/rstb.1994.0134
OpenAlex
W2140197392
Cited by
116
References
23
Citations by year
2025: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 4
FWCI
8.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
royalsociety.org/journals/ethics-policies/data-sharing-mining/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neurobiology of Language and Bilingualism
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
Keywords
specific language impairment, diagnostic validity, twin concordance, linguistic heterogeneity, heritability
MeSH terms
Cognition Disorders, Diseases in Twins, Humans, Language, Language Disorders, Nonverbal Communication, Psycholinguistics, Twin Studies as Topic

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