Language Error Type Evaluation in Developmental Delay Preschool Children by PLS-C
NCT ID: NCT02663011
Last Updated: 2016-01-26
Study Results
The study team has not published outcome measurements, participant flow, or safety data for this trial yet. Check back later for updates.
Basic Information
Get a concise snapshot of the trial, including recruitment status, study phase, enrollment targets, and key timeline milestones.
COMPLETED
54 participants
OBSERVATIONAL
2015-08-31
2015-10-31
Brief Summary
Review the sponsor-provided synopsis that highlights what the study is about and why it is being conducted.
To assess age and gender effect in the language error type (semantics, syntax and pragmatics)of developmental delay preschool aged children, a standardize tool "Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin" was adopted for evaluation.
Methods:
This is a retrospective chart study enrolled 55 children aged 3, 4 and 5 in department of rehabilitation in Taipei Medical University Hospital from 2011 Jan to 2014 Dec whose average PLS-C score was at least 1.5 SD below normal. Those normal or PLS-C score was less than 1.5SD below normal were excluded. We recorded correct percentage in pragmatics, syntax, and semantics in different age group separately in auditory comprehension, language expression as well as overall performance. All wrong questions answered in PLS-C were recorded. We used SAS 9.4 (Anova, t-test) to analyze the results in age differences, gender differences, and language components differences
Results:
In overall performance, expression, and comprehension, there was no difference between boy and girl by t-test in all ages. By one-way Anova Bonferroni t test, age 5 was better than age 4 and age 3 significantly in pragmatics, syntax and semantics (p\<0.005).
We further separated into groups of 5YR boy, 5YR girl, 4YR boy, 4YR girl, and 3YR boy.
In overall performance, by Duncan's multiple analysis, only 5 YR boy had significant better performance than 4 YR girl and 3 YR boy in pragmatics. In age 5, boys had better performance in pragmatics than girls (p\<0.05). In age 4, no differences are showed between boy and girl.
In comprehension, in age 5, boys have better performance in pragmatics than girls(p\<0.05).
In expression, there was no difference between boys and girls. Pragmatics was better than syntax (p=0.0202\<o.o5) in age 5.
Conclusion:
We found age had more effect than gender in language delay children. Age 5 boys had better performance in pragmatics conflicted with some previous studies and may need more exploration in the future.
Key words:
Development Delay, Preschool aged children, Language Development Delay, Semantics, Syntax, Pragmatics, Language error type
Related Clinical Trials
Explore similar clinical trials based on study characteristics and research focus.
Syntactic Intervention for Cantonese-speaking Children With DLD
NCT06954194
Reasoning Skills in Theory of Mind and Linguistic Tests in the Autistic Population
NCT02465086
Effects of Receptive Language Intervention vs Individual Therapy for Preschool Children With Autism Spectrum Disorder.
NCT06927518
The Effect of Prior Learning on Treatment of Morpheme Errors
NCT05953077
A Cross-sectional Study to Evaluate Speech and Language Development in Chinese Children Aged 2-6 Years
NCT05442229
Detailed Description
Dive into the extended narrative that explains the scientific background, objectives, and procedures in greater depth.
To assess age and gender effect in the language error type (semantics, syntax and pragmatics)of developmental delay preschool aged children, a standardize tool "Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin" was adopted for evaluation.
Methods:
This is a retrospective chart study enrolled 55 children aged 3, 4 and 5 in department of rehabilitation in Taipei Medical University Hospital from 2011 Jan to 2014 Dec whose average PLS-C score was at least 1.5 SD below normal. Those normal or PLS-C score was less than 1.5SD below normal were excluded. We recorded correct percentage in pragmatics, syntax, and semantics in different age group separately in auditory comprehension, language expression as well as overall performance. All wrong questions answered in PLS-C were recorded. We used SAS 9.4 (Anova, t-test) to analyze the results in age differences, gender differences, and language components differences
Results:
In overall performance, expression, and comprehension, there was no difference between boy and girl by t-test in all ages. By one-way Anova Bonferroni t test, age 5 was better than age 4 and age 3 significantly in pragmatics, syntax and semantics (p\<0.005).
We further separated into groups of 5YR boy, 5YR girl, 4YR boy, 4YR girl, and 3YR boy.
In overall performance, by Duncan's multiple analysis, only 5 YR boy had significant better performance than 4 YR girl and 3 YR boy in pragmatics. In age 5, boys had better performance in pragmatics than girls (p\<0.05). In age 4, no differences are showed between boy and girl.
In comprehension, in age 5, boys have better performance in pragmatics than girls(p\<0.05).
In expression, there was no difference between boys and girls. Pragmatics was better than syntax (p=0.0202\<o.o5) in age 5.
Conclusion:
We found age had more effect than gender in language delay children. Age 5 boys had better performance in pragmatics conflicted with some previous studies and may need more exploration in the future.
Key words:
Development Delay, Preschool aged children, Language Development Delay, Semantics, Syntax, Pragmatics, Language error type
Conditions
See the medical conditions and disease areas that this research is targeting or investigating.
Study Design
Understand how the trial is structured, including allocation methods, masking strategies, primary purpose, and other design elements.
CASE_ONLY
RETROSPECTIVE
Study Groups
Review each arm or cohort in the study, along with the interventions and objectives associated with them.
5YR boy
Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin
To assess age and gender effect in the language error type (semantics, syntax and pragmatics)of developmental delay preschool aged children, a standardize tool "Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin" was adopted for evaluation.
5YR girl
Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin
To assess age and gender effect in the language error type (semantics, syntax and pragmatics)of developmental delay preschool aged children, a standardize tool "Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin" was adopted for evaluation.
4YR boy
Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin
To assess age and gender effect in the language error type (semantics, syntax and pragmatics)of developmental delay preschool aged children, a standardize tool "Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin" was adopted for evaluation.
4YR girl
Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin
To assess age and gender effect in the language error type (semantics, syntax and pragmatics)of developmental delay preschool aged children, a standardize tool "Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin" was adopted for evaluation.
3YR boy
Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin
To assess age and gender effect in the language error type (semantics, syntax and pragmatics)of developmental delay preschool aged children, a standardize tool "Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin" was adopted for evaluation.
Interventions
Learn about the drugs, procedures, or behavioral strategies being tested and how they are applied within this trial.
Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin
To assess age and gender effect in the language error type (semantics, syntax and pragmatics)of developmental delay preschool aged children, a standardize tool "Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin" was adopted for evaluation.
Eligibility Criteria
Check the participation requirements, including inclusion and exclusion rules, age limits, and whether healthy volunteers are accepted.
Inclusion Criteria
Exclusion Criteria
3 Years
5 Years
MALE
No
Sponsors
Meet the organizations funding or collaborating on the study and learn about their roles.
Taipei Medical University Hospital
OTHER
Responsible Party
Identify the individual or organization who holds primary responsibility for the study information submitted to regulators.
Other Identifiers
Review additional registry numbers or institutional identifiers associated with this trial.
N201508007
Identifier Type: -
Identifier Source: org_study_id
More Related Trials
Additional clinical trials that may be relevant based on similarity analysis.