More or less likely to offend? Young adults with a history of identified developmental language disorders.

Only 84 of the original 242 children were assessed at age 24, and funding constraints contributed to attrition, so the sample may not represent all children who attended language units. The study did not include a comparison group of young people with DLD who did not receive language-unit intervention, so it cannot separate intervention from identification, selection or other childhood factors. Police contact, alcohol and drug use were self-reported, not checked against records, and the questionnaire used a small number of items under time constraints. Unmeasured variables such as childhood maltreatment, exposure to violence and delayed psychosocial maturity could have contributed to the differences. Language units provided input from speech and language therapists and specialised teachers, so any observed differences cannot be attributed to speech-language therapy alone. The aggression finding was a difference in raw scores, not a significant difference in clinical aggression levels, and rule-breaking did not differ. The study tested several outcomes and did not identify one primary outcome, so the pattern of significant and non-significant findings should be read cautiously.

The supplied text does not include a conflicts of interest or funding declaration. It notes only that funding constraints contributed to attrition.

Do not conclude that speech-language intervention reduced police contact. The DLD group had received language-unit support, which included speech and language therapists and specialised teachers, and was compared with peers without DLD, not with young people with DLD who did not receive intervention. The study cannot separate the contribution of any single component.