Receptive and expressive language characteristics of school-aged children with non-syndromic cleft lip and/or palate.

BACKGROUND

Research investigating language skills in school-aged children with non-syndromic cleft lip and/or palate is sparse. Past studies focus on younger populations, lack key comparisons to demographically matched control cohorts or explore language as a component of broader academic skills. Trends of existing studies suggest that affected children may perform at a lower level compared with typically developing peers.

AIMS

To examine the receptive and expressive language skills of middle-school-aged children with non-syndromic cleft lip and palate (CLP) and cleft palate only (CP). Additionally, to explore the language skills of children with clefts compared with a non-cleft control group.

METHODS & PROCEDURES: Thirty-seven participants with orofacial clefts (aged 7;1-14;1 years) participated in the study: 19 with CLP (10 males; 9 females) and 18 with CP (8 males; 10 females). A non-cleft comparison group consisted of 129 individuals matched on age, sex and maternal education level. Participants completed formal language (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Fourth Edition) and non-verbal intellectual measurements (Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence-WASI). Demographic and developmental information was obtained via parental interview. Further clinical details (e.g., surgery; hearing status) were extracted from patient medical files. Cleft and non-cleft language and non-verbal IQ outcomes were reported separately. Language outcomes were then compared between groups.

OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Participants with clefts achieved core (mean = 103.31, standard deviation (SD) = 10.31), receptive (mean = 102.51, SD = 11.60) and expressive (mean = 102.89, SD = 12.17) language index scores within the normative average range. A total of 14.1% and 17.8% of the cleft and non-cleft groups respectively had impairment (i.e., ≥ 1.25 SD below the mean) in one or more language domains. No significant differences were found in the three language index scores between cleft and non-cleft groups.

CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: This study is the first formally to examine language skills alongside non-verbal IQ in school-aged children with clefts compared with a large matched non-cleft population. Results suggest that health professionals should evaluate each child as they present and not assume that a child with non-syndromic CLP or CP will also have co-occurring language difficulties. Where language falls in the average range, these skills can be harnessed to support areas of difficulty often associated with orofacial clefting, such as speech.