天美传媒

Speech; Language therapy; Autism; Therapeutic; Language impairments

Introduction

One of the most prevalent developmental challenges during childhood involves difficulties with language or speech. If the root cause of the issue is unknown, it is referred to as primary, while secondary indicates that it stems from another underlying condition like autism, hearing issues, or neurological impairments. Even though some children only experience one type of disorder, they often overlap, and treatments for both share similar features, such as targeting language components and common cognitive processes like attention and listening. Consequently, distinguishing between speech and language disorders is problematic both in terms of research and interventions.

It is estimated that 5% to 8% of children have speech and/or language challenges [1,2], with a large proportion having primary speech and/or language impairments. The intensity, pattern of impairment, and degree of comorbidity of primary speech and/or language impairments can vary greatly between people. Concerns have been raised in recent years about how specific these problems are to speech and language, but the distinction between primary and secondary difficulties remains therapeutically helpful and is one that is frequently documented in the literature [3-5]. The most prevalent diagnostic diagnosis is specific language impairment, with specific pointing to the idiopathic character of the disorder. Yet, this word is problematic since it implies that challenges are limited to language. Differences in diagnostic categories/labels have ramifications for the current review, implying that a broad variety of diverse phrases are predicted across the literature. Therefore, for the purposes of this study, speech and language impairments will be referred to as speech and/or language disorders, reflecting the potential that children may have impairment in both or either of these domains. Speech and language disorders may impact any of the following areas: phonology (the child’s sound pattern), vocabulary (the words a child can say and understand), grammar (how language is constructed). According to the current assessment, the majority of these damaged regions may be categorized as a language result, with phonology designated as a separate consequence. There are still questions about the nature of the role of environmental factors as causes of primary disorder, whether distal (for example, socioeconomic status and maternal education) or proximal (for example, parent child and peer interaction and relationships), or whether these are factors influencing outcomes (mediators). So far, twin studies have indicated that genetics plays an increasingly important influence, particularly as the kid progresses through elementary school and especially for less socially disadvantaged children. Yet, environmental influences can have a very substantial effect in the early years, and significant language issues between higher and lower social groups can be identified early in children’s development and tend to remain [6]. These risk variables are likely to work cumulatively to raise the severity of the presenting condition [7], and they are important when it comes to impacting access to educational and therapeutic resources. Primary speech and/or language impairments can have long term and short term consequences for the kid and his or her parent or carer. According to research, they may have a negative impact on academic attainment [8-15]. According to recent reports, “about two children in every class of 30 students may exhibit language problem severe enough to impede academic advancement [16]. They may also be connected with coexisting social, emotional, and behavioural issues [17,18], as well as difficulty with peer interaction [19,20]. Interventions for children with primary speech and/or language disorders include a wide range of practises (methods, approaches, and programmes) that are specifically designed to promote speech and/or language development or to remove barriers to participation in society caused by a child’s difficulties, or both. Standardised evaluation (where available), observations of language and communication performance, and professional judgement are used to determine eligibility for intervention. Interventions are often time-limited and can be administered by any professional group, although they typically include input from language specialists, most notably speech and language therapists/pathologists. Interventions for children with speech and/or language disorders can be provided directly or indirectly, and in a variety of settings, such as the home, healthcare services, early years settings (nursery/school), school or private practises, by specialist professionals themselves or through proxies such as parents, teachers, or teaching assistants. Peers in the classroom may also give interventions in other situations. Direct interventions focus on treating the kid individually or in groups, depending on the age and requirements of the children receiving therapy, as well as the facilities available [21]. Children in group therapy are supposed to gain from the opportunity to engage with and learn from one another. Indirect interventions are typically regarded as more realistic because they allow adults who are already in the child’s surroundings to enhance communication. Historically, these techniques promote healthy parent child relationship to establish an optimal communication environment for the child. Indirect techniques are increasingly being used in a variety of contexts where speech and language therapists teach professionals and carers who engage with children and provide programmes or recommendations on how to improve the child’s communicative environment and communication attempts. Parents are frequently involved in the delivery of interventions to younger children but become less involved in the administration of the intervention as the kid grows older. Several intervention strategies use play to target behaviours and increase generality. Interventions for children with primary speech and/or language disorders would, in many cases, meet the criteria for a complex intervention, as they are made up of a number of elements that vary depending on both the theoretical assumptions underlying the intervention and the child’s perceived needs. The bulk of therapies include the reinforcement of specific behaviours (speech sounds, vocabulary, sentence structures). Most of the time, this entails some kind of reward (stickers, tokens and, most often, praise). Overt behavioural strategies are based on the premise that language or speech can be openly taught and that deficiencies in the child’s skills may be filled via teaching. Most treatment has changed in the last two decades from explicit training paradigms to ones based on social learning theory, which holds that children learn most successfully when they are instructed in a social environment. When a kid grows older, the emphasis of treatments switches to a more functional approach, in which children are taught skills that are most beneficial to them at the time. This functional shift frequently entails a change from explicit instruction to a more meta cognitive approach in which the therapist encourages the kid to think on what they hear and then incorporate it into their own repertoire. Frequently, the therapist may provide choices to the kid and encourage them to make decisions based on their inherent grammatical or phonological understanding. The process of making a decision is thought to boost the child’s possibilities of changing their language and/or speech performance. Constructivist or usage based explanations reflect a new language trend. The duration and severity of speech and/ or language therapy treatments vary based on the resources available, the child’s assessed requirements, and the policies of various speech and/or language therapy and educational programmes. The intensity and length of conventional therapeutic interventions have yet to be extensively studied, despite the fact that both have been highlighted as potentially major drivers of results. In actuality, some treatments are relatively modest in time and intensity, for example, six hours over a year. These brief interventions are frequently provided in blocks of treatment, typically once a week for six weeks. This process may be repeated based on a child’s progress, albeit there is no particular evidence to support this technique. In some cases, particularly in schools, interventions may be offered on a daily basis over a longer length of time. Overall, though, most speech and/or language treatments are rather brief (less than 20 hours in total). Therapy objectives vary greatly based on the perceived difficulty of the kid. While the emphasis is frequently on features of expressive language, many studies also focus on receptive language competence or verbal understanding, and there has been a growing emphasis on pragmatic language challenges in the recent decade (the way children use language with others). Therapy goals may concentrate on one component of language or address several areas of language simultaneously. Many speech and language therapists consider the child’s social skills, as well as their capacity to integrate with classmates and negotiate the curriculum, to be important objectives. The following are some recent advancement in intervention for children with primary speech and/or language impairments. In education, there has been an increase in the usage of computerised intervention packages, and more recently, apps (short for computerized application). A shift towards metacognitive or metalinguistic therapies, particularly for older children and frequently with the goal of improving understanding. They emphasise the kid making decisions based on their underlying language skills and frequently employ other, easily identifiable aids (that is, colour and shape). Increasing focus on universal or public health interventions in which speech, and particularly language, interventions are offered for entire populations through critical messages to parents and educating public health personnel. Increasing emphasis on comorbidity, such as the link between linguistic skills and socio emotional abilities, and if therapies aimed at the former may have consequences for the latter.

Conclusion

Interventions for children with primary speech and/or language disorders include a wide range of practises (methods, approaches, and programmes) that are specifically designed to promote speech and/or language development or to remove barriers to participation in society caused by a child’s difficulties, or both. Standardised evaluation (where available), observations of language and communication performance, and professional judgement are used to determine eligibility for intervention. Initiatives for children with speaking and/or language disorders can be provided either directly or through indirect means and in a variety of environments such as the home, healthcare services, early years settings (nursery/school), school or private practises, by specialist professionals themselves or through proxies such as parents, teachers, or teaching assistants. Peers in the classroom may also give recommendations in other situations.

Acknowledgement

Not applicable.

Conflict of Interest

Author declares no conflict of interest.

1. Boyle J, Gillham B, Smith N (1996) Child Lang Teach 12: 113-127.

,

2. Reilly S, Bishop DVM, Tomblin B (2014) Int J Lang Commun Disord 49:452-462. 

, ,

3. Naz Hussain F, Wilby K (2019) Curr Pharm Teach Learn 11:1196-1204.

, ,

4. Singh J P, Kar B (2018) PLoS One 12.

, ,

5. Boscardin C, Penuel W (2012) Acad Psychiatry 36:401-407.

, ,

6. Aram DVM, Nation JE (1980) J Commun Disord 13:159-1570.

, ,

7. Aram D, Ekelman B, Nation J (1984) J Speech Hear Res 27:232-244.

, ,

8. Baker L, Cantwell DP (1987) J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 26:546-553.

, ,

9. Bishop D, Adams C (1990) J Child Psychol Psychiatry 31:1027‐1050.

, ,

10. Collins J (2008) J Am Coll Radiol 5:993-1000.

, ,

11. Salzer R (2018) Anal Bioanal Chem 410:1609-1613.

, ,

12. Bishop DVM, McArthur GM (2005) Cortex 41:327-341.

, ,

13. Bishop DVM, Adams CV, Norbury CF (2006) Genes Brain Behav 5:158-169.

, ,

14. Bishop DVM (2014) Int J Lang Commun Disord 49:381-415.

, ,

15. Catts HW (1993) J Speech Hear Res 36:948-958.

, ,

16. Plante E (1998) J Speech Lang Hear Res 41:951-957.

, ,

17. Norbury CF, Gooch D, Wray C, Baird G, Charman T, et al. (2016) J Child Psychol Psychiatry 57:1247-1257.

,

18. Huntley RMC, Holt KS, Butterfill A, Latham C (1988) Br J Disord Commun 23:127-140.

, ,

19. Rice ML, Sell MA, Hadley PA (1991) J Speech Hear Res 34:1299‐1307.

, ,

20. Murphy SM, Faulkner DM, Farley LR (2014) J Abnorm Child Psychol 42:277‐289.

, ,

21. Chapman SB, Highley AP, Thompson JL (1998) J  Neurol 11:55-78.

Indexed at, ,