PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether language skills differed between children with cleft palate or cleft lip and palate (CP±CL) who were adopted into an English-speaking home from a non-English-speaking country (late English exposure [LE]) and children with CP±CL raised from birth in an English-speaking home (early English exposure [EE]). METHOD: Children (51 LE, 67 EE), ages 3;0 (years;months) to 9;0, completed the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF), Preschool Second Edition or Fourth Edition. Linear regression analysis was used to assess the impact of age of adoption and time in an English-speaking home on language skills, as measured by the CELF-P2 and CELF-4. RESULTS: Children with CP±CL who were adopted scored less well on all language indices, with mean adjusted differences between LE and EE children ranging from 0.4 to 0.7 SD on the CELF index scales. Only 53% of the EE children and 57% of the LE children obtained scores above 90 on all indices. For LE children, younger age at adoption was associated with better language skills. CONCLUSION: CP±CL increases risk for language delay, with the highest risk for LE children. LE children with CP±CL should receive language services soon after adoption.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to determine whether language skills differed between children with cleft palate or cleft lip and palate (CP±CL) who were adopted into an English-speaking home from a non-English-speaking country (late English exposure [LE]) and children with CP±CL raised from birth in an English-speaking home (early English exposure [EE]). METHOD: Children (51 LE, 67 EE), ages 3;0 (years;months) to 9;0, completed the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF), Preschool Second Edition or Fourth Edition. Linear regression analysis was used to assess the impact of age of adoption and time in an English-speaking home on language skills, as measured by the CELF-P2 and CELF-4. RESULTS: Children with CP±CL who were adopted scored less well on all language indices, with mean adjusted differences between LE and EE children ranging from 0.4 to 0.7 SD on the CELF index scales. Only 53% of the EE children and 57% of the LE children obtained scores above 90 on all indices. For LE children, younger age at adoption was associated with better language skills. CONCLUSION: CP±CL increases risk for language delay, with the highest risk for LE children. LE children with CP±CL should receive language services soon after adoption.
Authors: Hope Sparks Lancaster; Kari M Lien; Jason C Chow; Jennifer R Frey; Nancy J Scherer; Ann P Kaiser Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2019-12-13 Impact factor: 2.297