Clinical Management of Developmental Language Disorders: A Qualitative Study

Selin Tokalak İbrahim Can Yaşa
Abstract

Purpose: This study aims to provide insights into the solution-focused approaches of speech and language therapists (SLTs) in Turkey concerning clinical diagnosis and intervention for children with developmental language disorder (DLD). Method: The qualitative research method was chosen aiming for an in-depth exploration of the mentioned subject and to reach different, previously unexplored areas. Employing a qualitative paradigm and a constructivist approach, phenomenology was adopted as the primary research methodology to explore how SLTs provided therapy to children with DLD. Interpretative phenomenology was selected as the analytical approach, as it went beyond describing the phenomena (i.e., descriptive phenomenology) and aimed to uncover the embedded, often unconscious, meanings in everyday life practices. 15 SLTs with professional experience ranging from 2 to 16 years participated in the research. The data for the research was collected through semi-structured interviews which were transcribed into written text to create the dataset. To ensure the consistency of data analysis, the data was analyzed by an expert in the field other than the researchers. Results: The findings indicated that SLTs frequently used the Turkish version of the Test of Early Language Development (TEDİL), observations, and various informal assessments often complemented by the case history in the diagnosis of DLD. Among other formal assessment tools mentioned by SLTs for assessing DLD in their clinical practices were the Turkish version of the Test of Language Development-Primary (TODİL), Ankara Development Inventory (AGTE), Turkish version of MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory (TİGE), and Turkish Expressive and Receptive Language Test (TİFALDİ). In addition, a significant majority of the participants expressed dissatisfaction with formal assessment tools for evaluating DLD. In response to this situation, the suggestions were offered for the revision of existing tests in terms of the visuals included or for the development of formal assessment tools specifically targeting more specific age ranges for evaluation. The choice of intervention was determined according to whether the intervention appealed to the individual with DLD, the intervention was appropriate to the age as well as the specific diagnosis and severity of the disorder. According to SLTs, parents played a crucial role in the diagnosis and intervention process. However, the parents expressed that this critical role assigned to parents was often not provided at the desired level.  Conclusion: These findings underscore the need for a clear and consistent terminology of differential diagnosis in the field of DLD (a), a quick and easy-to-apply comprehensive differential diagnostic tool to assess participation in daily life (b), updating existing assessment tools (c), and the dissemination of practices or trainings (d) that encourage the adoption of evidence-based intervention approaches for DLD. 



Keywords

clinical assessment, clinical management, developmental language disorder, intervention, therapist approaches.


References

Allen, M.M. (2013). Intervention efficacy and intensity for children with speech sound disorder. Journal of Speech Language Hearing Research, 56(3), 865–877.

Altıntaş, M. (2014). Çocuklar İçin Zihin Kuramı Test Bataryası’nın 4-5 yaş Türk çocuklarına uyarlanması, geçerlik güvenirlik çalışması [Yayınlanmamış yüksek lisans tezi]. Haliç Üniversitesi.

Aksu-Koç, A., Küntay, A.C. ve Acarlar, F. (2011) Türkçe’de Erken Sözcük ve Dilbilgisi Gelişimini Ölçme ve Değerlendirme Çalışması: Türkçe İletişim gelişimi Envanterleri: TİGIE-I ve TİGIE-II, TÜBİTAK 107KO58 Projesi Sonuç Raporu.

APA, American Psychiatric Association. (2013). DSM-5 diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders, 5. baskı; American Psychiatric Association: Arlington, VA, ABD.

Beitchman, J. H., Wilson, B., Johnson, L., Atkinson, L., Young, A., Adlaf, E. ve Douglas, L. (2001). Fourteen year follow-up of speech/language impaired and control children: Psychiatric outcome. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, 40(1), 75–82.

Bishop, D.M.V. & Edmunson, A. (1987). Specific Language Impairment as a maturational lag: Evidence from longitudinal data on language and motor development. Development Medicine Child Neurology, 29, 442–459.

Bishop, D.M.V. (1997). Pre- and perinatal hazards and family background in children with specific language impairments: A study of twins. Brain and Language, 56, 1–26.

Bishop, D. V. M. (2004). Specific language impairment: Diagnostic dilemmas. In L. Verhoeven & H. van Balkom (Eds.), Classification of developmental language disorders (s. 309–326).

Bishop, D. V. M., Snowling, M. J., Thompson, P. A. ve Greenhalgh, T., the CATALISE Consortium. (2016). CATALISE: A multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study. Identifying language impairments in children. PLoS One, 11(12).

Bishop, D.M.V. (2017). Why is it so hard to reach agreement on terminology? The case of developmental language disorder (DLD). International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 52(6), 671-680.