Underlying and surface manifestations of developmental phonological disorder in French-speaking preschoolers aged 4 to 6 years
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
Many children misarticulate more sounds than expected for their age and present with a Developmental Phonological Disorder (DPD). Children with DPD are at risk for later academic and socio-emotional difficulties. Successful intervention for these children is dependent on a good understanding of the underlying nature of their disorder (Stackhouse & Wells, 1997). Whereas speech-language pathologists have been assessing the surface manifestations of communication disorders for many decades, knowledge of the underlying causes of speech and language impairments is more limited but growing. In addition, while there is a large body of research on the surface manifestations of DPD in English-speaking children, there is currently a paucity of information regarding the surface manifestation of the disorder in French-speaking children. The purpose of the research described in this dissertation was to investigate the underlying psycholinguistic profiles and the surface manifestations of DPD in a large group of French-speaking preschoolers. More precisely, Study one aimed to determine whether the psycholinguistic profiles of French-speaking children with DPD are similar to those of English-speaking children with DPD as reported in the literature. Seventy-two French-speaking children with DPD, aged4 to 6 years, were assessed on measures of articulation accuracy, receptive vocabulary, nonverbal intelligence, phonological processing and structure and function of the oral-speech mechanism. Ten typically developing French-speaking children completed the articulation accuracy, receptive vocabulary, phonological awareness, and syllable repetition tasks. Results indicated that the vast majority of French-speaking children with DPD presented with phonological processing difficulties; furthermore, measures of phonological processing explained significant variance in speech production accuracy after controlling for individual differences in receptive vocabulary skills and maternal education. Study two aimed to determine whether surface speech errors aremanifested differently in French-speaking children with DPD in comparison to a very similar group of English-speaking children with DPD. Twenty-four French-speaking children with DPD were matched on percentage of consonants correct in conversation, age, and receptive vocabulary to English-speaking children with DPD. By comparing these children's productions of consonants on a single-word test of articulation, we found that the surface manifestations of DPD are differentin these two languages. The French-speaking children obtained low match ratios for the major sound class features [+consonantal] and [+sonorant], reflecting a high frequency of omission errors. In contrast, English-speaking children obtained high match ratios for the major sound class features [+consonantal] and [+sonorant] and produced more substitution errors.The results of Study one add to the growing body of literature supporting a core deficit in phonological processing in children with DPD. In English-speaking children, this underlying deficit in phonological processing remains present regardless of environmental changes and/or the child's maturation, whereas the surface speech errors produced by young children with DPD change as they get older and in response to environmental changes. In the studies described here, asimilar core deficit in phonological processing was found in children speaking French, whereas the surface speech errors were different than those of English-speaking children, due to the differences in the phonological systems of these two languages. These findings point to the importance of assessing the phonological processing skills of children with a current or past history of DPD, as well as to the need to use test instruments with French-speaking children that reflect thephonological characteristics of the language at multiple levels of the phonological hierarchy.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».