Linguistic Skills and Working Memory in Monolingual and Bilingual Children Born Prematurely: Preliminary Data
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Determining the effects of prematurity on language development is a complex phenomenon. This is especially true when one considers that many children live in multilingual and multicultural environments. When preparing for an evaluation, speech-language pathologists must use assessment tools that allow them to objectively determine the communication abilities of their client; the selection of assessment tools is a critical step in this evaluation process. However, in Official Minority Language Communities (OMLC), this process is made more difficult by the lack of standardized assessment tools and regional norms. At present, no study has examined the linguistic competencies of bilingual children born prematurely and taken into consideration the implication of residing in a minority language community. Using a formal evaluation battery comprised of French and English language tests, this study examined the linguistic knowledge, linguistic processing and working memory of three groups of premature children having average non-verbal language skills: monolingual children speaking English (ENG) (n=5, X=6.6 years; SD=1.1), bilingual children whose dominant language was French (FD) (n=5, X=9.3 years; SD=0.99), and bilingual children whose dominant language was English (ED) (n=3, X=8.1 years; SD=1.5). Results showed that regardless of language dominance, birth weight and degree of prematurity, participants’ scores fell within the average range on simple language tasks, or tasks measuring linguistic knowledge. However, most children experienced difficulties with complex language tasks measuring linguistic processing, as well as working memory. More bilinguals then monolinguals were identified as having a PLI. Also, of those identified, only one participant was identified as having language delays in the preschool period, demonstrating that the difficulties observed in this study developed at a later stage. Long-term follow-up is necessary in order to determine if these weaknesses are maintained, or if they impact academic success.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".