Motor Profile of Children With Developmental Speech and Language Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The purpose of this study was to investigate the motor profile of 125 children with developmental speech and language disorders and to test for differences, if any, in motor profile among subgroups of children with developmental speech and language disorders. METHODS: The participants were 125 children with developmental speech and language disorders aged 6 to 9 years from 2 special schools for children with communication problems in the northern Netherlands. They were tested with the Movement Assessment Battery for Children. The children were classified by the schools' speech and language therapists into 3 subgroups on the basis of language tests, oral motor tests, and clinical examinations: children with speech disorders (n = 14), language disorders (n = 46), or both (n = 65). RESULTS: Compared with the norms of the Movement Assessment Battery for Children, children with developmental speech and language disorders performed significantly less well. Results showed that 51% of the children with developmental speech and language disorders had borderline or definite motor problems. Children with language disorders had significantly lower scores (ie, better performance) on the ball-skills subtest and the total test than children with speech disorders and children with both speech and language disorders. Furthermore, children with language disorders had significantly better performance on the balance subtest than children with both speech and language disorders. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study support the idea that developmental speech and language disorders are frequently associated with motor problems and that the kind of developmental speech and language disorders affects motor performance differently. Speech and language disorders seem to have more impact on motor performance than only language disorders, and it seems that when speech production is affected, motor problems are more pronounced. The findings support the need to give early and more attention to the motor skills of children with developmental speech and language disorders in the educational and home setting, with special attention to children whose speech is affected.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".