4.5 Article

Prevalence and Predictors of Persistent Speech Sound Disorder at Eight Years Old: Findings From a Population Cohort Study

期刊

出版社

AMER SPEECH-LANGUAGE-HEARING ASSOC
DOI: 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-S-14-0282

关键词

-

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G9815508, MC_PC_15018] Funding Source: Medline
  2. Wellcome Trust [102215] Funding Source: Medline
  3. MRC [G0501804] Funding Source: UKRI
  4. Medical Research Council [MC_PC_15018, G0501804] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine prevalence and predictors of persistent speech sound disorder (SSD) in children aged 8 years after disregarding children presenting solely with common clinical distortions (i.e., residual errors). Method: Data from the Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children (Boyd et al., 2012) were used. Children were classified as having persistent SSD on the basis of percentage of consonants correct measures from connected speech samples. Multivariable logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictors. Results: The estimated prevalence of persistent SSD was 3.6%. Children with persistent SSD were more likely to be boys and from families who were not homeowners. Early childhood predictors identified as important were weak sucking at 4 weeks, not often combining words at 24 months, limited use of word morphology at 38 months, and being unintelligible to strangers at age 38 months. School-age predictors identified as important were maternal report of difficulty pronouncing certain sounds and hearing impairment at age 7 years, tympanostomy tube insertion at any age up to 8 years, and a history of suspected coordination problems. The contribution of these findings to our understanding of risk factors for persistent SSD and the nature of the condition is considered. Conclusion: Variables identified as predictive of persistent SSD suggest that factors across motor, cognitive, and linguistic processes may place a child at risk.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据