Underlying and surface manifestations of developmental phonological disorder in French-speaking preschoolers aged 4 to 6 years
Bibliographic record
Abstract
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".