Speech-Language Profile Groups in School Aged Children with Cerebral Palsy: Nonverbal Cognition, Receptive Language, Speech Intelligibility, and Motor Function.
Jennifer U Soriano, Katherine C Hustad
PMID 33356732WHAT IT FOUND
Receptive language scores largely matched nonverbal cognitive scores in 27 speaking children with cerebral palsy.
For most, typical language comprehension suggested typical cognition, and impaired comprehension suggested cognitive impairment. This supports using language tests as a rough proxy when motor issues make cognitive testing difficult.
Key findings
01Better nonverbal cognitive abilities were strongly correlated with better receptive language and gross motor skills, and moderately correlated with fine motor skills and intelligibility.
02Children with speech motor involvement and typical language comprehension had significantly higher nonverbal cognitive scores than those with speech motor involvement and language comprehension impairment.
03There was a 74% overall match between classifications of language comprehension impairment and nonverbal cognitive impairment, indicating moderate agreement.
STILL TO COME
How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for PTsWhat it means for SLPs
Read the rest of this summary
You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.
What it does not show
The sample size was small (n=27) and not fully representative of all children with cerebral palsy. Children with anarthria (unable to produce more than five words) were excluded, so findings do not apply to non-speaking children. Standardized tests for cognition and language were designed for children without motor disabilities, which may have biased scores due to the motor demands of the tasks. Different cut-off points were used for language (1.5 SD below mean) and cognition (2.0 SD below mean), which affects the agreement statistics.
The easy way to misread this
Do not assume that a child with typical language comprehension definitely has typical cognition, or that impaired language means impaired cognition. The match was 74%, meaning about a quarter of children were classified differently across the two domains. Exceptions occurred where children had visual or severe motor impairments that skewed cognitive test results, or where children had specific language deficits independent of cognition.