Selecting Language-Impaired Children for Research Studies: Insights from the San Diego Longitudinal Study

Abstract

The need for a standardized approach to the selection of research subjects for studies on language impairment has long been an area of controversy in the literature. The data obtained from the selection of language-impaired and control subjects for the San Diego Longitudinal Study allows one to evaluate the effects a two-stage subject-selection procedure has on the characteristics of the language-impaired and normal subjects selected for research studies. Specifically, what effect do quantitative measures, as compared to clinical judgements and referrals, have on the characteristics of subjects selected for research studies? Explicit and detailed oral and written descriptions of subjects sought for both a language-impaired group and a control group were given to teachers and clinicians. However, only 39 of the first 100 children referred as language-impaired and 29 of the first 60 referred as normal controls were found on standardized testing to meet the study criteria and to be matched on important variables, such as IQ and socioeconomic status. These results demonstrate the importance of establishing quantitative inclusionary as well as exclusionary criteria for selecting and matching subjects in clinical research studies.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Beitchman

J. H.

Nair

Ferguson

Patel

P. G.

(1986) Prevalence of psychiatric disorders in children with speech and language disorders. Journal of the American Academy of Child Psychiatry, 25, 528–535.

Carrow

(1974) Carrow Elicited Language Inventory. New York: Teaching Resources.

DiSimoni

(1978) The Token Test for Children. New York: Teaching Resources.

Dunn

L. M.

Dunn

L. M.

(1981) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—Revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.

Fundala

J. B.

(1980) The Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale Revised (AAPS). Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

Geschwind

Behan

P. O.

(1984) Laterality, hormones and immunity. In Guillemin

Cohn

Melnechuk

(Eds.), Neural modulation of immunity. New York: Raven. Pp. 73–80.

Hendrick

D. E.

Prather

E. M.

Tobin

A. R.

(1979) Sequenced Inventory of Communication Development. Seattle, WA: Univer. of Washington Press.

Hollingshead

A. B.

(1965) Two-factor index of social position. New Haven, CT: Yale Univer. Station.

Ingram

T. T. S.

(1959) Specific developmental disorders of speech in childhood. Brain, 82, 450–467.

10.

Lee

(1969) Northwest Syntax Screening Test. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univer. Press.

11.

Leiter

(1952) Arthur Adaptation of the Leiter International Performance Scale. Washington, DC: Psychological Services Center Press.

12.

Levine

M. N.

(1982) Leiter International Performance Scale: A handbook. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.

13.

Ludlow

C. L.

Cooper

J. A.

(1983) Genetic aspects of speech and language disorder. New York: Academic Press.

14.

Morley

(1965) Development and disorders of speech in children. London: Livingstone.

15.

Nesselroade

J. R.

Baltes

P. B.

(1979) Longitudinal research in the study of behavior and development. New York: Academic Press.

16.

Stark

R. E.

Tallal

(1981) Selection of children with specific language deficits. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorder, 46, 114–122.

17.

Tallal

Curtiss

Kaplan

(1988) The San Diego longitudinal study: Evaluating the outcomes of preschool impairment in language development. In Gerber

S. E.

Mencher

G. T.

(Eds.), International perspectives in communication disorders. Washington, DC: Gallaudet Univer. Press. Pp. 86–126.

18.

Wechsler

(1974) Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children—Revised. New York: Psychological Corp.

19.

Weiner

(1971) Stability and validity of two measures of intelligence used with children whose language development is delayed. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 14, 254–261.