Conti-Ramsden Gina, Simkin Zoë, Pickles Andrew
Human Communication and Deafness, School of Psychological Sciences, The University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom.
J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2006 Feb;49(1):88-101. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2006/007).
Two approaches commonly used for estimating prevalence of language disorders in families were compared. The 1st involved examining a subset of language items from an investigator-based interview used to record parental information on the language and literacy difficulties in relatives. The 2nd was the direct assessment of ability in immediate family using a battery of standardized verbal ability, language, and literacy assessments.
Using these 2 methods, the prevalence of language and literacy disorders was investigated in the immediate family (n=271) of 93 children with a history of SLI (mean age 13;11 years).
The overall proportion of relatives with reported language or literacy difficulty was similar for both methods (34.5% for reported difficulties compared with 35% on direct assessment). The present study further explored maternal, paternal, and sibling prevalence rates and strength of agreement between parental interview and direct assessment. When a low cutoff score was used, good agreement (of true negatives and true positives) for reading and spelling difficulties and expressive language between the 2 types of case identification method was found.
Parents can be effective identifiers when the impairment is severe (below 2 SDs from the population mean). Poor agreement was observed between report and assessment of receptive language difficulties.
比较两种常用于估计家庭中语言障碍患病率的方法。第一种方法是从基于研究者的访谈中抽取一部分语言项目，该访谈用于记录父母关于亲属语言和读写困难的信息。第二种方法是使用一系列标准化的言语能力、语言和读写能力评估工具，直接评估直系亲属的能力。
采用这两种方法，对93名有特定语言障碍病史（平均年龄13岁11个月）的儿童的直系亲属（n = 271）的语言和读写障碍患病率进行了调查。
两种方法报告的有语言或读写困难的亲属总体比例相似（报告的困难比例为34.5%，直接评估的比例为35%）。本研究进一步探讨了母亲、父亲和兄弟姐妹的患病率，以及父母访谈和直接评估之间的一致性强度。当使用较低的临界分数时，发现两种病例识别方法在阅读、拼写困难和表达性语言方面（真阴性和真阳性）有良好的一致性。
当损伤严重（低于总体均值2个标准差）时，父母可以成为有效的识别者。在接受性语言困难的报告和评估之间观察到一致性较差。
