American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Vol.9 345-357 November 2000.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Zhang, X.
Right arrow Articles by Tomblin, J. B.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Zhang, X.
Right arrow Articles by Tomblin, J. B.
Related Collections
Right arrow Editors' Awards
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

The Association of Intervention Receipt With Speech-Language Profiles and Social-Demographic Variables

Xuyang Zhang 1
J. Bruce Tomblin 1

1 The University of Iowa, Iowa City

xuyang-zhang{at}uiowa.edu

This study explored the effects of oral communication and demographic characteristics on intervention receipt. Oral communication characteristics included speech-sound production and receptive and expressive language status. Demographic characteristics included race, sex, residential strata, and neighborhood income level. With regard to speech-sound production and language, 1,929 kindergartners were divided into four speech-language subgroups: speech impaired only, language impaired only, speech and language impaired, and normal in both speech and language. In terms of expressive and receptive language modalities, the group of children was divided into four expressive-receptive subgroups: expressive impaired only, receptive impaired only, expressive and receptive impaired, and normal in both expressive and receptive language. Associations of speech versus language and expressive language versus receptive language with intervention receipt were examined in both categorical and continuous manners. Results showed that speech had a stronger effect on intervention receipt than language, but that this difference could not be explained by the effect of speech on social and academic functions compared to that of language. Expressive language had a stronger effect on intervention receipt than receptive language (when treated as continuous variables). This also could not be explained by the effect of these variables on social and academic function. These results suggest that the current referral and service delivery system depends on communication characteristics that are expressive and, thus, most readily observable. This referral and service delivery approach, however, fails to identify children that have the greatest social and academic risks. Methods of reversing this trend were discussed. Among all demographic variables examined, only sex is related to intervention receipt, that is, boys were more likely to have received intervention.

Key Words: intervention receipt, speech-language profile, receptive versus expressive, socio-demographics

Submitted on August 11, 2000
Accepted on October 10, 2000


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
PediatricsHome page
J. Law, R. Rush, C. Anandan, M. Cox, and R. Wood
Predicting Language Change Between 3 and 5 Years and Its Implications for Early Identification
Pediatrics, July 1, 2012; 130(1): e132 - e137.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JSLHRHome page
S. Gray and S. Brinkley
Fast Mapping and Word Learning by Preschoolers With Specific Language Impairment in a Supported Learning Context: Effect of Encoding Cues, Phonotactic Probability, and Object Familiarity
J Speech Lang Hear Res, June 1, 2011; 54(3): 870 - 884.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JSLHRHome page
S. M. Redmond, H. L. Thompson, and S. Goldstein
Psycholinguistic Profiling Differentiates Specific Language Impairment From Typical Development and From Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder
J Speech Lang Hear Res, February 1, 2011; 54(1): 99 - 117.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JSLHRHome page
M. L. Rice, F. Smolik, D. Perpich, T. Thompson, N. Rytting, and M. Blossom
Mean Length of Utterance Levels in 6-Month Intervals for Children 3 to 9 Years With and Without Language Impairments
J Speech Lang Hear Res, April 1, 2010; 53(2): 333 - 349.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JSLHRHome page
G. H. Poll, S. K. Betz, and C. A. Miller
Identification of Clinical Markers of Specific Language Impairment in Adults
J Speech Lang Hear Res, April 1, 2010; 53(2): 414 - 429.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
LSHSSHome page
J. B. Tomblin
The EpiSLI Database: A Publicly Available Database on Speech and Language
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, January 1, 2010; 41(1): 108 - 117.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
LSHSSHome page
K. J. Greenslade, E. Plante, and R. Vance
The Diagnostic Accuracy and Construct Validity of the Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test--Preschool: Second Edition
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, April 1, 2009; 40(2): 150 - 160.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]


Home page
JSLHRHome page
L.-y. Guo, J. B. Tomblin, and V. Samelson
Speech Disruptions in the Narratives of English-Speaking Children With Specific Language Impairment
J Speech Lang Hear Res, June 1, 2008; 51(3): 722 - 738.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]