Jisook Park1, Elina Mainela-Arnold2, Carol A Miller3. 1. The Pennsylvania State University, Communication Sciences and Disorders, United States. Electronic address: jzp151@psu.edu. 2. The University of Toronto, Speech-Language Pathology, Canada. 3. The Pennsylvania State University, Communication Sciences and Disorders, United States.
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study investigated (1) whether nonlinguistic processing speed predicts nonverbal IQ in TD children and children with SLI and (2) if the proposed relationship is different at two time points. METHOD: The participants consisted of a subset of a longitudinal dataset, 55 typically developing children and 55 children with SLI. Children completed four nonverbal speed tasks and four subtests of the WISC-III. The WISC-III subtests requiring timed and untimed responses were examined separately. RESULTS: Linear mixed model analyses indicated that in both groups, processing speed predicted nonverbal IQ subtests that reward speedy responses, but not IQ subtests that do not. The relationships between processing speed and IQ with speed bonuses did not differ at grades 3 and 8, and these relationships also were not significantly different in children with SLI and their TD peers. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the presence of processing speed limitations in many children with SLI raises questions about the utility of timed nonverbal IQ measures as tools for diagnosis of SLI. Future studies should investigate other cognitive assessments that could be used as inclusionary criteria for SLI. LEARNING OUTCOMES: The reader will be able to (1) describe the relationship between processing speed and nonverbal IQ in children with TD and SLI and (2) discuss problems using an IQ criterion to diagnose children as having SLI.
PURPOSE: This study investigated (1) whether nonlinguistic processing speed predicts nonverbal IQ in TD children and children with SLI and (2) if the proposed relationship is different at two time points. METHOD: The participants consisted of a subset of a longitudinal dataset, 55 typically developing children and 55 children with SLI. Children completed four nonverbal speed tasks and four subtests of the WISC-III. The WISC-III subtests requiring timed and untimed responses were examined separately. RESULTS: Linear mixed model analyses indicated that in both groups, processing speed predicted nonverbal IQ subtests that reward speedy responses, but not IQ subtests that do not. The relationships between processing speed and IQ with speed bonuses did not differ at grades 3 and 8, and these relationships also were not significantly different in children with SLI and their TD peers. CONCLUSIONS: The results suggest that the presence of processing speed limitations in many children with SLI raises questions about the utility of timed nonverbal IQ measures as tools for diagnosis of SLI. Future studies should investigate other cognitive assessments that could be used as inclusionary criteria for SLI. LEARNING OUTCOMES: The reader will be able to (1) describe the relationship between processing speed and nonverbal IQ in children with TD and SLI and (2) discuss problems using an IQ criterion to diagnose children as having SLI.