Twenty-Year Follow-Up of Children With and Without Speech-Language Impairments: Family, Educational, Occupational, and Quality of Life Outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: Parents, professionals, and policy makers need information on the long-term prognosis for children with communication disorders. Our primary purpose in this report was to help fill this gap by profiling the family, educational, occupational, and quality of life outcomes of young adults at 25 years of age (N = 244) from the Ottawa Language Study, a 20-year, prospective, longitudinal study of a community sample of individuals with (n = 112) and without (n = 132) a history of early speech and/or language impairments. A secondary purpose of this report was to use data from earlier phases of the study to predict important, real-life outcomes at age 25. METHOD: Participants were initially identified at age 5 and subsequently followed at 12, 19, and 25 years of age. Direct assessments were conducted at all 4 time periods in multiple domains (demographic, communicative, cognitive, academic, behavioral, and psychosocial). RESULTS: At age 25, young adults with a history of language impairments showed poorer outcomes in multiple objective domains (communication, cognitive/academic, educational attainment, and occupational status) than their peers without early communication impairments and those with early speech-only impairments. However, those with language impairments did not differ in subjective perceptions of their quality of life from those in the other 2 groups. Objective outcomes at age 25 were predicted differentially by various combinations of multiple, interrelated risk factors, including poor language and reading skills, low family socioeconomic status, low performance IQ, and child behavior problems. Subjective well-being, however, was primarily associated with strong social networks of family, friends, and others. CONCLUSION: This information on the natural history of communication disorders may be useful in answering parents' questions, anticipating challenges that children with language disorders might encounter, and planning services to address those issues.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".