A systematic scoping review on contextual factors associated with communicative participation among children with developmental language disorder.

BACKGROUND: Variations in communicative participation of children with developmental language disorder (DLD) cannot be wholly explained by their language difficulties alone and may be influenced by contextual factors. Contextual factors may support or hinder communicative participation in children, which makes their identification clinically relevant. AIMS: To investigate which contextual (environmental and personal) factors in early childhood are protective, risk or neutral factors for communicative participation among school-aged children with DLD, and to identify possible gaps in knowledge about this subject. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A scoping review was conducted based on a systematic search of studies published from January 2007 to March 2022 in Pubmed, Embase (without MEDLINE), CINAHL and PsycINFO. In total, 8802 studies were reviewed using predefined eligibility criteria, of which 32 studies were included for data extraction and critically appraised using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (2021) tools. MAIN CONTRIBUTION: The methodological quality of included studies was adequate to strong. Personal protective factors identified are being a preschool girl, reaching school age and being prosocial, while personal risk factors are becoming a teenager or adolescent, having low socio-cognitive skills and experiencing comorbid mobility impairment or behavioural problems. Gender after the preschool years and non-verbal abilities were not found to be of influence, and the role of socio-emotional skills is inconclusive. Receiving therapy is an environmental protective factor, while the association between socio-economical family characteristics with communicative participation is inconclusive. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: Limited research has been conducted on which risk and protective factors present in early childhood are associated with later communicative participation of children with DLD. The influence of co-occurring health conditions, social background variables, individual psychological assets, interpersonal relationships and attitudes of other people represent knowledge gaps. In addition, knowledge about the comparative effectiveness of different types of interventions and service delivery models, and the impact of administrative control, organizational mechanisms and standards established by governments on children's communicative participation is lacking. More longitudinal research is needed focusing on the identification of relevant personal and environmental factors and the interactions between them in relation to communicative participation outcomes. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject Children with DLD experience varying degrees of communicative participation restrictions. Insight into contextual factors that influence communicative participation can help to identify children at risk and inform family and child-centred therapy. Systematic research on contextual factors that facilitate or hinder communicative participation in children with DLD is currently lacking. What this paper adds to existing knowledge Knowledge of protective factors can guide the development of interventions for children and young people with DLD that boost resilience and facilitate communicative participation, while insight into the risk factors can help professionals identify the most vulnerable children and develop interventions that can lift or neutralize barriers present in the life of these children. Specific groups potentially at risk are young boys, children with co-morbid mobility impairment, children with conduct problems, and children reaching adolescence. In contrast, potentially protective factors are reaching school age and being prosocial. In addition, the development of socio-cognitive skills may be beneficial for the communicative participation of children with DLD. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? To support communicative participation, it is important that professionals who work with children with DLD understand which groups are at risk for communicative participation restrictions, and which factors can foster resilience. In the absence of evidence-based instruments for the systematic assessment of personal and environmental factors, consulting parents and children on the contextual factors that they perceive as important remains critical.

Same or Different: The Overlap Between Children With Auditory Processing Disorders and Children With Other Developmental Disorders: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVES: Children diagnosed with auditory processing disorders (APD) experience difficulties in auditory functioning and with memory, attention, language, and reading tasks. However, it is not clear whether the behavioral characteristics of these children are distinctive from the behavioral characteristics of children diagnosed with a different developmental disorder, such as specific language impairment (SLI), dyslexia, attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning disorder (LD), or autism spectrum disorder. This study describes the performance of children diagnosed with APD, SLI, dyslexia, ADHD, and LD to different outcome measurements. The aim of this study was to determine (1) which characteristics of APD overlap with the characteristics of children with SLI, dyslexia, ADHD, LD, or autism spectrum disorder; and (2) if there are characteristics that distinguish children diagnosed with APD from children diagnosed with other developmental disorders. DESIGN: A systematic review. Six electronic databases (Pubmed, CINAHL, Eric, PsychINFO, Communication & Mass Media Complete, and EMBASE) were searched to find peer-reviewed studies from 1954 to May 2015. The authors included studies reporting behaviors and performance of children with (suspected) APD and children diagnosed with a different developmental disorder (SLI, Dyslexia, ADHD, and LD). Two researchers identified and screened the studies independently. Methodological quality of the included studies was assessed with the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's levels-of-evidence scheme. RESULTS: In total, 13 studies of which the methodological quality was moderate were included in this systematic review. In five studies, the performance of children diagnosed with APD was compared with the performance of children diagnosed with SLI: in two with children diagnosed with dyslexia, one with children diagnosed with ADHD, and in another one with children diagnosed with LD. Ten of the studies included children who met the criteria for more than one diagnosis. In four studies, there was a comparison made between the performances of children with comorbid disorders. There were no studies found in which the performance of children diagnosed with APD was compared with the performance of children diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. Children diagnosed with APD broadly share the same characteristics as children diagnosed with other developmental disorders, with only minor differences between them. Differences were determined with the auditory and visual Duration Pattern Test, the Children's Auditory Processing Performance Scale questionnaire, and the subtests of the Listening in Spatialized Noise-Sentences test, in which noise is spatially separated from target sentences. However, these differences are not consistent between studies and are not found in comparison to all groups of children with other developmental disorders. CONCLUSIONS: Children diagnosed with APD perform equally to children diagnosed with SLI, dyslexia, ADHD, and LD on tests of intelligence, memory or attention, and language tests. Only small differences between groups were found for sensory and perceptual functioning tasks (auditory and visual). In addition, children diagnosed with dyslexia performed poorer in reading tasks compared with children diagnosed with APD. The result is possibly confounded by poor quality of the research studies and the low quality of the used outcome measures. More research with higher scientific rigor is required to better understand the differences and similarities in children with various neurodevelopmental disorders.

Perspectives of Dutch health professionals regarding auditory processing disorders; a focus group study.

OBJECTIVE: This study investigated the perspectives of professionals from the Dutch audiological centres on the definition and care pathways of children with suspected auditory processing disorders (susAPD). DESIGN: focus group interviews. STUDY SAMPLE: In total, 45 professionals from 6 disciplines, representing 22 different audiological centres and one ambulatory service, participated in five parallel focus group interviews. Participants had a variety of experience in diagnosing and advising children with suspected APD. RESULTS: Qualitative analysis (open and thematic) identified four themes ("Definition", "Causes", "Diagnostic Procedures" and "Clinical Reasoning") expressing a variety of perspectives. Differences in perspectives were mainly affected by two debates: (1) whether or not APD exists as a pure (auditory) disorder and (2) whether or not current AP-tests are suitable in diagnosing children with listening difficulties. They also expressed a need for more guidance from the literature in their clinical decision making process. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals from the Dutch audiological centres share a broad perspective on children with APD. The ICF framework supports this perspective, thereby diminishing the need for a clear definition. The use of AP-tests should be limited to children where broader developmental disorders are first ruled out; a possible "pure" APD could then be diagnosed in a limited number of children.

Response to the Letter to the Editor From Moncrieff (2017) Regarding de Wit et al. (2016), "Characteristics of Auditory Processing Disorders: A Systematic Review".

Purpose: The purpose of this letter is to respond to Moncrieff's (2017) letter to the editor, "Response to de Wit et al., 2016, 'Characteristics of Auditory Processing Disorders: A Systematic Review,'" published in May 2017 by the Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. Conclusion: We believe that our original conclusions are valid given the limited evidence that is currently available about the etiology of auditory processing disorders (APD). The focus of our systematic review was to identify the characteristics of children with a diagnosis of APD or a suspicion of APD. The results of our study showed that the characteristics of these children are not specific or limited to the auditory modality but are multimodal instead. In our view, it is incorrect to use the diagnosis APD, because there is not necessarily a specific auditory deficit in a large group of children suffering from listening difficulties. Before we start using any new diagnoses, a better insight into how bottom-up and top-down processes are precisely involved in listening needs to be developed. In addition, more insight is needed with respect to the similarities and differences between the different developmental disorders of children.

Characteristics of Auditory Processing Disorders: A Systematic Review.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this review article is to describe characteristics of auditory processing disorders (APD) by evaluating the literature in which children with suspected or diagnosed APD were compared with typically developing children and to determine whether APD must be regarded as a deficit specific to the auditory modality or as a multimodal deficit. METHOD: Six electronic databases were searched for peer-reviewed studies investigating children with (suspected) APD in comparison with typically developing peers. Relevant studies were independently reviewed and appraised by 2 reviewers. Methodological quality was quantified using the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association's levels of evidence. RESULTS: Fifty-three relevant studies were identified. Five studies were excluded because of weak internal validity. In total, 48 studies were included, of which only 1 was classified as having strong methodological quality. Significant dissimilarities were found between children referred with listening difficulties and controls. These differences relate to auditory and visual functioning, cognition, language, reading, and physiological and neuroimaging measures. CONCLUSIONS: Methodological quality of most of the incorporated studies was rated moderate due to the heterogeneous groups of participants, inadequate descriptions of participants, and the omission of valid and reliable measurements. The listening difficulties of children with APD may be a consequence of cognitive, language, and attention issues rather than bottom-up auditory processing.