research topics for speech and language

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• HHS Author Manuscripts

Language Disorders Research on Bilingualism, School-Age, and Related Difficulties: A Scoping Review of Descriptive Studies

Associated data, background:.

Developmental language disorder (DLD) often remains undetected until children shift from ‘learning to read’ to ‘reading to learn,’ around 9 years of age. Mono- and bilingual children with DLD frequently have co-occurring reading, attention, and related difficulties, compared to children with typical language development (TLD). Data for mono- and bilingual children with DLD and TLD would aid differentiation of language differences versus disorders in bilingual children.

We conducted a scoping review of descriptive research on mono-and bilingual children < and >= 9 years old with DLD versus TLD, and related skills (auditory processing, attention, cognition, executive function, and reading).

Data Sources:

We searched PubMed for the terms “bilingual” and “language disorders” or “impairment” and “child[ren]” from August 1, 1979 through October 1, 2018.

Charting Methods:

Two abstracters charted all search results. Main exclusions were: secondary data/reviews, special populations, intervention studies, and case studies/series. Abstracted data included age, related skills measures’, and four language groups of participants: monolingual DLD, monolingual TLD, bilingual DLD, and bilingual TLD.

Of 366 articles, 159 (43%) met inclusion criteria. Relatively few (14%, n = 22) included all 4 language groups, co-occurring difficulties other than nonverbal intelligence (n = 49, 31%) or reading (n = 51, 32%) or any 9–18 year-olds (31%, n = 48). Just 5 (3%) included only 9–18 year-olds. Among studies with any 9 to 18 year olds, just 4 (8%, 4/48) included 4 language groups.

Conclusions:

Future research should include mono- and bilingual children with both DLD and TLD, beyond 8 years of age, along with data about their related skills.

Speech and language disorders occur in approximately 7% of children ages 3 to 17 years in the United States 1 and represent the second most common disability (at 20%) among children receiving special education in the United States. 2 Developmental Language Disorders (DLD), previously called specific language impairment or SLI) refer to a long-standing condition, not associated with any other medical or causal conditions, where children have problems understanding and using spoken language. 3 , 4 Outside the field of communications science, DLD receives scant attention compared to other, less prevalent developmental disabilities, including autism, attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), learning, and intellectual disabilities. 5 , 6 DLD is most often diagnosed in childhood, but the co-morbid conditions associated with it continue to affect functioning throughout one’s life. For example, DLD often leads to learning disabilities in school-aged children 7 and can continue to restrict a person’s social and academic performance well beyond adolescence into adulthood. 8 , 9

Differentiating a language disorder from normal language acquisition in bilingual speakers can be challenging for clinicians and educators. As bilingualism has become increasingly prevalent, the scope of this challenge is significant. In 2018, 23% of school-aged children nationwide spoke a language other than English at home. 10 English learners (ELs) comprised 10% of public school students in the 2017–2018 academic year, a 2% increase from 2000 to 2001. ELs may need 3 to 7 years to converge with native English-speaker norms. 11 Review of special education plans for school-aged ELs suggest an estimated 40% who were misclassified. For these children, authors write “ special education placement was the ‘early intervention’ when they entered elementary school ”. 12

Despite advances in language research on mono- and bilingual children, comparisons based on age, co-morbidities, and language ability (eg, DLD ± in mono- and bilinguals) may be limited. Regarding age, the first years of life remain critical for language development; 13 thus much research on mono- 14 and bilingual children covers the period prior to school entry, 15 , 16 or just after (ie, up to ≈8 years old). 17 , 18 Children with DLD often have co-occurring difficulties that impact both expression and severity of their clinical and learning needs. During the shift from ‘learning to read’ to ‘reading to learn’ that typically occurs around 9 years of age, 19 reading comprehension problems become more salient. 20 This often leads to a cascading effect of difficulties that arise with language disorders, such as behavioral and social emotional problems, 21 , 22 less social competence, 23 and attention problems. 24 Children with language difficulties report more concerns in the transition from elementary to middle school. 25 From a life course perspective, DLD at school entry is a risk factor for poorer literacy, mental health, and employment outcomes in adulthood. 26 Internationally, rates of compromised language (if not frank DLD) are higher among justice-involved youth vs. community samples, even controlling for socioeconomic status. 27 , 28

Among monolingual children, systematic reviews and meta-analyses of co-occurring difficulties with DLD tend to focus on a specific co-morbidity, such as reading skills, 29 behavioral problems, 21 cognition, 30 or attention. 31 In bilingual children, these reviews have narrowly focused on executive function rather than other cognitive skills, 32 , 33 or comparison of language development in mono- and bilingual children with autism. 34 In addition, studies of bilingualism in older children 35 or those that focus on academic and social emotional development are scarce. In one, a population study of monolingual (DLD+/DLD−) and multilingual (DLD+/DLD−) children, language, literacy, and math performance at follow-up (8–9 years old) tracked closely with DLD status at baseline (4–5 years old), with both mono- and multilingual children with DLD+ performing more poorly. 36

We conducted a scoping review to identify gaps in descriptive (ie, non-interventional) research in school-aged mono- and bilingual children with/without language disorders, across putative comorbid difficulties. The goal was to broadly assess the adequacy of this research, with a focus on the medical literature, to guide future research. The research question guiding our review was: “To what extent does bilingualism research about children with language disorders include children aged 9 years or older, comparator groups by language status (mono- vs bilingual) and ability (with/without language disorder), and data on related difficulties (eg, behavioral)?”.

Protocol and Eligibility Criteria

In contrast to systematic reviews, which are designed to answer more precise questions, scoping reviews “examine the extent, range and nature of research activity” and identify gaps in the literature. 37 , 38 Additionally, scoping reviews provide a better alternative to systematic reviews in cases where researchers are examining how research in a specific content area is conducted – namely, what type of methodological study designs have been used – and can also serve as a precursor to future systematic reviews. 39 In accordance with recent scoping review guidelines, the protocol and eligibility criteria were established a priori 40 and followed Arksey and O’Malley’s (2005) framework, 38 as later enhanced by Levac (2010). 41

• Identify Research Question . See above.
• Identifying Relevant Studies . We applied the following search terms “bilingual” and “language disorders” or “language impairment” and “child[ren].” We conducted the search in PubMed with a date range of August 1, 1979 through October 1, 2018. This search yielded 366 studies, which were entered into a Microsoft Excel dataset. As the review was undertaken to guide a research project, a pragmatic decision was made to search only one database. We focused on PubMed because it indexes: a) American Speech-Hearing-Language Association journals that were of interest, and; b) literature that would include the range of comorbidities of interest.
• Abstract was not in English : studies for which there was not an English translation of the abstract were excluded because the team did not have the linguistic capacity to review.
• Secondary data/review : meta-analyses, literature and systematic reviews, viewpoints, etc., were deemed to lack sufficient detail to complete our charting instrument.
• Special population s: Studies comprised solely of samples selected for specific conditions (eg, children with autism or ADHD) were excluded given a focus on the general population. However, we retained studies in general pediatric samples which, by definition, would include children with such conditions.
• Intervention : Intervention studies tend to focus on a narrow group of eligible treatment subjects. Their inclusion would thus bias results towards under-detecting studies that include this review’s multiple variables of interest, for example, age >= 9 years, measures of co-occurring difficulties). Exceptions include reports of previously conducted interventions with sufficient descriptive data, not otherwise excluded.
• Case study/case series : articles with fewer than 5 participants were excluded, given their limited generalizability.

Title of article, with hyper-link for review by abstracters

• Year–of publication.
• Authors–year and country of authors’ affiliated institutions.
• Language(s)–of children in study.
• Study Groups–were classified based on the authors’ description as: a) Monolingual + Typical Language, b) Monolingual + DLD, c) Bi-/Multilingual + Typical Language, and d) Bi-/Multilingual + DLD. Children (groups) were defined as monolingual, bilingual, or multilingual based on the authors’ designation. Designation of children (groups) as bi/multilingual need not require a specific measure. Children (groups) defined as DLD include those described as having language delay, language disorder, and language impairment.
• Sample size–child participants only; excludes 18+.
• Ages–of children included.
• Language included a broad range of expressive and receptive measures, as well as measures of phonology and narrative language. Not all measures were standardized. Only a few studies examined articulation, fluency, or voice (in addition to other language measures).
• Attention included explicit description of tests of visual and auditory attention, sustained/divided attention (eg, Continuous Performance Test), and behavioral survey measures such as those used to identify ADHD (eg, Conner’s Comprehensive Behavioral Rating Scale).
• Auditory Processing included measures of listening difficulties in the absence of hearing loss. We relied on authors explicit use of this term to identify these measures (eg, dichotic digits, binaural integration).
• Nonverbal Intelligence included measures that assess the ability to think about and solve problems that do not require verbal language, for example, puzzles, pattern recognition (eg, Raven’s Progressive Matrices). Note, we did not classify use of nonverbal intelligence measures to determine study eligibility or for stratification purposes as a study outcome.
• Nonverbal Working Memory : Refers to the ability to temporarily hold and manipulate visual, spatial, and auditory input, (eg, n-bask tasks; verbal memory span).
• Executive Function (EF): Iincluded measures denoted by the authors as tests of executive function (eg, Comprehensive Executive Function Inventory, Wisconsin Card Sorting Test). We are cognizant of the broad conceptualizations of EF, often described as an umbrella of neurocognitive skills (eg, planning, organization, inhibition, shifting, and self-regulation). Included among these are attention and (cognitive) nonverbal working memory, which we identified as separate categories, when they were not explicitly referred to by the authors as tests of EF.
• Reading/Phonology : Included specific mention of reading comprehension task or phonological assessment (in abstract, list of assessments, or title), including sentence/reading comprehension, and phonological repetition, nonword repetition or phonemic awareness tasks.
• Collating, Summarizing, and Reporting Results : If authorship spanned multiple countries, the lead author’s country was listed. Language was dichotomized as “English + Spanish” vs. others because we intended to apply findings to research in the United States, where Spanish is the most frequent second language (L2). Age was classified as including children: younger than 9 years, older than 9 years, or 0 to 18 years. The initial reviewer, who composed screening guidelines, screened all 366 publications and recorded results in Excel. Publications were then divided for secondary reviews to the five co-authors, who were masked to the evaluation of the initial reviewer. Four reviewers screened 73 articles and one reviewer screened 74 articles. The initial reviewer cross-checked all secondary reviewer logs, and those with discrepancies were sent to a seventh reviewer to resolve conflict. Data charting forms for above measures were completed only for publications that met inclusion criteria. Frequencies are presented as number (%). For sample size we present the range, mean (standard deviation) and median (interquartile range). Data were exported to SPSS (IBM Statistics, Version 2.5, 2017) for cross-tabulation analysis by age. We completed the scoping review in October of 2018. Since this time, additional papers have been published. A cursory check of PubMed revealed an additional 57 papers up to June 2020. This value is consistent with the expanding number of relevant papers.

Selection of Sources of Evidence. A schematic of our scoping review’s 5-step methodological framework is shown in Figure 1 . 41 Sources of evidence were selected by a PubMed search for the terms “bilingual”, “children”, and “language disorder” or “language impairment” between the years of 1979–2018. Of the 366 papers initially identified, 207 were excluded because they were: not written in English (n = 27), not primary sources of research (ie, literature reviews, meta-analyses) (n = 67), were primarily focused on interventions (n = 41) or special populations other than children with language disorders (n = 29), and case studies (n = 41). Two papers were excluded under the ‘Other’ category.

Flow diagram.

Characteristic of Sources of Evidence. The remining 159 papers included in the review are listed in the Appendix along with the countries where they were conducted, languages studied, and sample size. Just 4 were published prior to 2000, after which time the number of papers increased by approximately twofold every 5 years, with the last 5-year block showing 72 papers. ( Fig. 2 ) Approximately half were conducted in the United States (n = 83, 52%); countries contributing <3% of studies are not shown. About half included bilingual English-Spanish speakers (n = 82, 52%), with the remainder including other language combinations. The studies’ median sample size was 62 (IQR = 33–119), with the range spanning 9 to 1,108. ( Table 1 )

Number of publications meeting scoping review criteria.

Overall Data Frequencies (n = 159 Studies)

TLD indicates typical language development.

• Results of Individual Sources of Evidence: N/A: only one source. See below for summary of results.
• Synthesis of results: While most studies included bilingual children with typical language (n = 138, 87%), just half included bilingual children with DLD (n = 86, 54%), and few included all 4 study groups (n = 22, 14%). Among studies with a Bilingual DLD group, the majority included a Bilingual TLD group (70/86, 81%). Similarly, among the studies with a Monolingual DLD group, most included a Monolingual TLD group (30/39; 77%) [not shown]. Just over one-quarter included any children aged 9 years or older. As expected, most included language measures (n = 145, 91%). Just under a third assessed reading/phonology (n = 51, 32%) or nonverbal intelligence (n = 49, 31%). The remaining measures were included in fewer than 10% of studies. ( Table 1 )

Data stratified by age < or >= 9 years of age are shown in Table 2 . Age data were missing for 2 studies, thus the denominator used to calculate cell percentages is n = 157. Less than a third of studies included any children 9 to 18 years (n = 48, 31%); 5 studies (3%) included only children of this age. Among the 48 studies with any 9 to 18 year olds, just 4 (8%, 4/48) included all 4 language groups. Despite increased executive function and reading demands around 9 years of age, relatively few studies of older children include these measures.

Frequency Data by Age (n = 157)

DLD indicates developmental language disorder.

Typical = typical language.

Most children with DLDs have difficulties that persist into later childhood; prolonged difficulties impact literacy development. Paradoxically, the scope of research on DLD and related skills in school-aged mono- and bilingual children remains unclear. This scoping review examined the extent to which bilingualism research about children with language disorders includes children aged 9 years or older, comparator groups by language status (mono- vs bilingual) and ability (with/without language disorder), and data on related difficulties. Of the 159 manuscripts that met inclusion criteria, just 31% included any 9 to 18 year-olds, and only 3% included only 9 to 18 year-olds. Just 14% included all four language groups, and apart from nonverbal intelligence (31% of studies) or reading (32% of studies), few included data for related difficulties.

Research on bilingual children with DLD was largely absent prior to 2000, but increased sharply between 2010 and 2018. Slightly over half the studies examined Spanish-English bilinguals – likely because many were from the United States, where Spanish is the most commonly spoken second language. Among the 60 million persons in the United States older than 5 years who speak a language other than English at home, more than half speak Spanish or Spanish Creole (37.5 million), followed by Chinese (2.9 million). 42 Worldwide, two-thirds of people speak one of 12 languages, the top 5 of which were: Chinese (all dialects, 1.4 billion), Hindu-Urdu (588 million), English (527 million), Arabic (467 million), and Spanish (389 million). English is spoken in the greatest number of countries (101). 43 Yet, few studies identified for our scoping review included speakers of Arabic or Hindu-Urdu. Thus, our research suggests that research on both DLD and typical language development be expanded to these languages.

There was a dearth of studies in all 4 comparator groups. Few studies compared all 4 language groups (bilingual typical, monolingual typical, bilingual DLD and monolingual DLD). The (relatively) more limited research on mono- versus bilingual children with DLD may impede understanding of what DLD ‘looks like’ in mono- versus bilingual children. As well, we found limited assessment of related difficulties. This finding runs counter to the shift in terminology from SLI to ‘DLD,’ which better approximates DLD’s co-occurrence with other neurodevelopmental disorders, 3 and its clinical presentation. For example, our multidisciplinary developmental disabilities center’s school-age unit in the Bronx, New York evaluates children 6 years or older in 2019. Excluding those with autism and intellectual disability, n = 168 were diagnosed with DLD, including a third who were bilingual English-Spanish. Among these children with DLD, 91% had one or more academic, behavioral, or emotional difficulty including: reading (44%), math (38%), writing (34%), ADHD (53%), anxiety (27%), or depression (9%). These (unpublished) clinical data support the conceptualization of DLD as a spectrum disorder, as others have. 44 Our findings thus suggest that DLD research has not kept pace with the conceptualization and presentation of DLD.

The first US profile of middle childhood health and behavior found that more than 20% of 6 to 11 year-olds had a special health care need (including behavioral or developmental) and that speech-language disorders peaked at 7.7% at 8 to 9 years. 45 Yet, a majority of studies in our scoping review (70%) were in children younger than 9 years; just 5 studies (3%) included only these older children. With mounting cognitive, regulation and social demands in early preadolescence, persistent language deficits can lead to a child being newly diagnosed with a reading or learning disability. Late detection of reading disorders in particular occurs in ELs and children with lower socioeconomic means. 46 Additionally, Black, Hispanic, and linguistic minority children in the United States are less likely to be identified with a learning disability or speech-language impairment by the end of middle school than similarly situated white peers. 47 Our clinical experience echoes this finding: among children newly diagnosed with DLD at our center’s school-aged unit (see above), 75% were 9 years or older. Our center is located in the Bronx, where nearly 60% of households speak a language other than English, and 27% of persons meet US Census criteria for poverty, 48 underscoring the disparities related to timely identification of DLD.

This scoping review possesses both strengths and limitations. To our knowledge, this is the first scoping (or systematic) review to concomitantly examine language differences (eg, mono- vs bilingual) and disorders, age and related difficulties. Other strengths include adherence to established scoping review protocols, masked secondary review of initial charting decisions, and a multidisciplinary reviewer team that included clinical, language disorders, and neuroscience expertise.

A primary limitation of this review is its reliance on PubMed alone, rather than additional education or psychology databases. The authors undertook this review to inform their development of a research project; in this context use of a single database was deemed practical and appropriate. We selected PubMed given our focus on identifying difficulties that often co-occur with DLD but that go beyond language as well as because PubMed indexes American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) journals. To gauge the extent of this limitation, we conducted a cursory review of ERIC (EBSCO) (sponsored by the US Department of Education) using the same initial search terms and time period. This yielded n = 108 papers (vs n = 366 in our review), 55% of which were indexed in PubMed. Titles ‘missed’ from PubMed included those in linguistics and bilingualism journals which might have rendered our findings on comorbidities even more conservative. Conversely, the search in ERIC missed 62% of papers identified in PubMed, including those in International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, and the Journal of Communication Disorders. At the same time, this cursory review identified a parallel increase in research on bilingualism in the past decade across both search engines. Findings reported here can serve as a precursor for a more comprehensive (using multiple search engines), systematic review of this topic. Additionally, omitting ‘adolescent’ as a search terms may have missed a small number of papers.

CONCLUSIONS

Our scoping review identified substantial gaps in research on bilingualism in children in terms of related difficulties, comparator groups, and age. In the United States, where speech-language pathologists must adhere to both ASHA and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act requirements, there has been progress in evaluating language proficiency in bilingual speakers. 49 However, the relatively more limited research on both mono- and bilingual children with DLD presents limitations to this progress. Worldwide, there is some misalignment between languages studied compared with the number of speakers of major language groups. Future research that captures the breadth of DLD as a spectrum disorder, across childhood, is warranted.

What this Systematic Review Adds:

• Developmental language disorder (DLD) may go undetected until children start ‘reading to learn’.
• DLD can be difficult to diagnose in bilingual speakers, especially absent comparative data on mono- and bilingual children with/without DLD.
• Research is needed on school-age comparator groups.

How to Use this Systematic Review:

• For pediatricians in diverse settings: to guide clinical data collection in mono- and bilingual children and DLD.
• To guide analysis of secondary data in mono- and bilingual children and DLD.
• To advocate for increased DLD screening in school-aged mono- and bilingual children.

Supplementary Material

Appendix table, acknowledgments.

The authors would like to thank Ms. Emma Brezel for data entry assistance.

Financial statement:

This work was supported by a grant from the US Department of Health and Human Services, Administration on Community Livings (90DDUC0035), core funding grant for the Rose F Kennedy University Center of Excellence in Developmental Disabilities.

The authors have no conflicts of interests to report.

Supplementary Data

Supplementary data related to this article can be found online at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.acap.2021.12.002 .

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings
• My Bibliography
• Collections
• Citation manager

Save citation to file

Email citation, add to collections.

• Create a new collection
• Add to an existing collection

Add to My Bibliography

Your saved search, create a file for external citation management software, your rss feed.

• Search in PubMed
• Search in NLM Catalog
• Add to Search

New perspectives, theory, method, and practice: Qualitative research and innovation in speech-language pathology

Affiliations.

• 1 Speech Pathology, School of Allied Health, Curtin University, Perth, Australia.
• 2 Speech Pathology, School of Medical and Health Sciences, Edith Cowan University, Perth, Australia.
• 3 School of Allied Health Science and Practice, Adelaide University, Adelaide, Australia.
• 4 Speech Pathology, Rural Department of Allied Health, La Trobe University, Bendigo, Australia.
• 5 Department of Speech and Language Therapy, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
• 6 Health Professions Education, School of Medicine, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia.
• PMID: 35172643
• DOI: 10.1080/17549507.2022.2029942

Purpose: Research in speech-language pathology has been dominated by experimental, empirical, and scientific approaches, which build on hypothesis testing and logical, deductive reasoning. Qualitative approaches stem from a different paradigm or world view which imply different questions and methodologies which, for example, emphasise codesign, reciprocity, individual experience and context. This article explores the relationship between qualitative inquiry in the field of speech-language pathology and innovation. It aims to show how the aspirations of the profession can be supported, and how innovation can be achieved, through research which sheds light on the lived experiences and perceptions of clients and families and builds an understanding of how they function in their everyday contexts. Method: We summarise qualitative approaches in speech-language pathology, explain the notion of innovation, and review qualitative research as a source of theoretical, methodological, and practice innovation in speech-language pathology. Result: Not only has qualitative inquiry underpinned examples of theoretical, methodological and practice innovations in speech-language pathology, but it can also play a part in enhancing translation and implementation of research innovations. Conclusion: An explicit consideration of what we mean by innovation is useful for speech-language pathologists. Qualitative research complements other forms of research in the field and has prompted new theoretical understandings, new methodologies and methods of research, and new ways to deliver our services in ways that are responsive to our clients and communities.

Keywords: innovation;; qualitative research;; speech-language pathology.

PubMed Disclaimer

Similar articles

• The application of qualitative approaches in a post-colonial context in speech-language pathology: A call for transformation. Watermeyer J, Neille J. Watermeyer J, et al. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2022 Oct;24(5):494-503. doi: 10.1080/17549507.2022.2047783. Epub 2022 Apr 18. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2022. PMID: 35435778
• Public purse, private service: The perceptions of public funding models of Australian independent speech-language pathologists. Nickless T, Gold L, Dowell R, Davidson B. Nickless T, et al. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2023 Jun;25(3):462-478. doi: 10.1080/17549507.2023.2213864. Epub 2023 Jun 5. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2023. PMID: 37272352
• Developing and sustaining a social media ecosystem in speech-language pathology: Using innovative qualitative methods to visualise and cultivate a social media garden. Brunner M, Bryant L, Turnbull H, Hemsley B. Brunner M, et al. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2022 Oct;24(5):558-569. doi: 10.1080/17549507.2022.2069860. Epub 2022 May 13. Int J Speech Lang Pathol. 2022. PMID: 35549966
• Making a Case for Studying Gender-Neutral Pronouns in Speech-Language Pathology. Shotwell S, Sheng L. Shotwell S, et al. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2021 Oct 18;52(4):1141-1145. doi: 10.1044/2021_LSHSS-21-00021. Epub 2021 Aug 9. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2021. PMID: 34370957 Review.
• What does "engagement" mean in early speech pathology intervention? A qualitative systematised review. Melvin K, Meyer C, Scarinci N. Melvin K, et al. Disabil Rehabil. 2020 Sep;42(18):2665-2678. doi: 10.1080/09638288.2018.1563640. Epub 2019 Feb 5. Disabil Rehabil. 2020. PMID: 30720352 Review.
• Speaking up for the lost voices: representation and inclusion of people with communication impairment in brain tumour research. Menger F, Cresswell H, Lewis J, Volkmer A, Sharp L. Menger F, et al. Support Care Cancer. 2023 May 27;31(6):355. doi: 10.1007/s00520-023-07804-5. Support Care Cancer. 2023. PMID: 37237058 Free PMC article.
• Search in MeSH

LinkOut - more resources

• MedlinePlus Health Information
• Citation Manager

NCBI Literature Resources

MeSH PMC Bookshelf Disclaimer

The PubMed wordmark and PubMed logo are registered trademarks of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Unauthorized use of these marks is strictly prohibited.

• Frontiers in Signal Processing
• Audio and Acoustic Signal Processing
• Research Topics

Speech and Language Processing

Total Downloads

Total Views and Downloads

About this Research Topic

Speech and language are interconnected. With speech, we can convey our intention through our vocal apparatus. Yet, the production of speech itself requires an understanding of the language. Language understanding forms early when the child's brain connects the perceived speech sounds and other sensory ...

Keywords : Speech and Language Processing, Speech Synthesis, Speech Recognition, Voice Conversion, Speech Analysis, Speech Coding, Speech Enhancement, Language Modeling, Machine Translation, Spoken Language Understanding, Spoken Dialogue System, Paralinguistics

Important Note : All contributions to this Research Topic must be within the scope of the section and journal to which they are submitted, as defined in their mission statements. Frontiers reserves the right to guide an out-of-scope manuscript to a more suitable section or journal at any stage of peer review.

Topic Editors

Topic coordinators, recent articles, submission deadlines.

Participating Journals

Manuscripts can be submitted to this Research Topic via the following journals:

total views

• Demographics

No records found

total views article views downloads topic views

Top countries

Top referring sites, about frontiers research topics.

With their unique mixes of varied contributions from Original Research to Review Articles, Research Topics unify the most influential researchers, the latest key findings and historical advances in a hot research area! Find out more on how to host your own Frontiers Research Topic or contribute to one as an author.

• Subscribe to journal Subscribe
• Get new issue alerts Get alerts

Secondary Logo

Journal logo.

Colleague's E-mail is Invalid

Your message has been successfully sent to your colleague.

Save my selection

Enhancing Language Services to Native American Children: A Look From the Inside

Editor(s): Vining, Christine B. PhD, CCC-SLP, Issue Editors ; Guiberson, Mark PhD, CCC-SLP, Issue Editors

The authors have indicated that they have no financial and no nonfinancial relationships to disclose.

As coeditors of this issue of Topics in Language Disorders , titled Enhancing Language Services to Native American Children: A Look From the Inside , we are pleased to highlight topics related to language disorders in Native American children. It is important to note that this is the first time a major journal is highlighting contemporary issues related to language assessment and disorders in Native Americans and that the articles include the work of Native American authors. This issue features four articles, with content related to language development, assessment, and intervention for Native American children. These articles, which include data-based studies, literature reviews, and clinical tutorials, expand on scholarly work focusing on Native American language and language disorders.

The perspectives of Native American professionals with lived experiences as tribal members provide a unique view “from the inside.” A “look from the inside” allows for a rare glimpse of issues related to English and Indigenous languages and their impact on language development, language assessment, and language intervention. The importance of cultural considerations in practices and research is a central theme in this issue. The compilation of the articles suggests that, although we have made some progress in the research of language development and language disorders in Native American populations, there is a need for continued scholarly work to support clinical applications with this population.

DEMOGRAPHICS

Tribal membership is typically determined by tribes. The amount of Indian blood necessary for tribal enrollment varies across tribal nations. Some tribes are federally recognized, and some tribes are not but are recognized by their state. Norris et al. (2012) summarized data for the American Indian/Alaskan Native (AI/AN) population. According to the 2010 Census, 5.2 million people (1.7% of all people) in the United States identified as American Indian or Alaskan Native (AI or AN), either alone or in combination with one or more other races.

One issue that emerges for researchers and clinicians is what term they should use to reference the Indigenous people of North America. Although there are debates about the most appropriate term, the federal government has used the term “American Indian/Alaskan Natives” to refer to this group in general. The National Congress of American Indians (NCAI) has differentiated the terms “Native American” and “AI/AN.” The NCAI (2020) defines AI/AN as “persons belonging to the tribal nations of the continental United States (American Indians) and the tribal nations and villages of Alaska (Alaska Natives)” (p. 11). According to the NCAI (2020) , there are 574 sovereign tribal nations (referred to as tribes, nations, bands, pueblos, villages) and 334 federally and state recognized AI reservations across 35 states within the border of the United States. The NCAI uses the term “Native American” as all encompassing, “All Native People of the United States and its trust territories (i.e., American Indians, Alaska Natives, Native Hawaiians, Chamorros and American Samoans), as well as persons from Canadian First Nations and Indigenous communities in Mexico and Central and South America who are U.S. residents” (p. 11). It is interesting the term “Native American” as defined by the NCAI approximates the U.S. federal definition for AI or AN.

Federal agencies typically report data using the term “American Indian” or “Alaskan Native.” Norris et al. (2012) reported that the U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) began mandating in 1997 that federal agencies use five race categories: White, Black or African American, American Indian or Alaska Native, Asian, and Native Hawaiian or Pacific Islander. It also created a category, Some Other Race, and allowed for respondents to identify with more than one race. The important implication of this change is that data for the number of children served in special education, including those receiving speech and language services, now include a category of “two or more races.” Norris et al. reported that the OMB defined the AI/AN category as “a person having origins in any of the original peoples of North and South America (including Central America) and who maintains tribal affiliation or community attachment” (p. 2). Individuals checking the AI/AN box included people from tribes (e.g., Apache, Blackfeet), AN (e.g., Inupiat, Yup'ik), or Central American Indian groups or South American Indian groups. The NCAI's description of Native American is similar to the OMB definition of AI or AN.

At the state and community levels, tribes may prefer to identify with the term designated by their groups (e.g., Hopi, Acoma, Cheyenne). A number of tribes may use the English and/or the native term when referring to their groups (e.g., Navajo vs. Diné). Although we settled on the term “Native American” in the title for this issue to highlight empowerment of native communities, we allowed authors to determine which term they used to describe the target population in their respective papers. Some of the authors have used the following terms: “American Indian,” “Native American,” “Indigenous population,” or specific tribal affiliation. Our intent is to be respectful of how native communities identify themselves. Regardless of the terms used (i.e., “American Indian” or “Native American”), it is important to note that the term “American” has been associated with the negative impact of colonization and so some communities may prefer to be identified by their tribal affiliation instead.

Tribal languages

The diversity of tribes also reflects linguistic diversity. Language services to Native American children require an understanding of the current status of Native American languages across communities. Krauss (1998) reported that English has become the first and only language spoken by many AI/AN children, and intergenerational language decline is found among these speech communities across America. Krauss shared information that indicated, of the 175 Indigenous languages still spoken in the United States, 155 (87%) were classified as moribund or in linguistic decline; only 20 (17%) of these languages were “healthy” and still spoken by children. More recently, the U.S. Census Bureau (2011) reported that AI/ANs 5 years and older spoke 169 Indigenous languages at home. The language shift from Indigenous languages to English, including the use of varieties of English, has had significant implications for education ( Crawford, 2004 ), special education ( Artiles & Ortiz, 2002 ), and speech–language pathology practices ( Vining et al., 2017 ).

Special education and speech–language services

Children and youth with disabilities are served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) each year. Data reported by the National Center for Education Statistics ( NCES, 2019 ) show increasing demands for speech–language pathology services in addressing the needs of Native American students with disabilities in schools. In school year 2018–2019, 7.1 million, or 14%, of all public school students aged 3–21 years received special education services and a higher percentage of students received services for specific learning disabilities than for any other type of disability ( Hussar et al., 2020 ). According to Hussar et al., data showed that 33% of all students who received special education services had specific learning disabilities, 19% had speech or language impairments, and 15% had other health impairments. The NCES (2019) reported data on students receiving IDEA Part B services by race and ethnicity. Relative to AI/AN students, the NCES indicated that 38% had specific learning disabilities, 16% had speech–language impairment, and 12% had other health impairment. Furthermore, a higher percentage of AI students (10%) received services for developmental delay compared with 6% of all students. Rates for students with intellectual disabilities (total: 6%; AI/AN: 5%) and emotional disturbance (total: 5%; AI/AN: 5%) were fairly comparable for students served under IDEA ( NCES, 2019 ). In addition, students from AI/AN backgrounds were less likely to receive services for autism (total: 10%; AI/AN: 6%). Students with multiple disabilities, hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments, visual impairments, and traumatic brain injuries each accounted for 2% or less of those served under IDEA for all students receiving special education services as well as for AI/AN students in special education ( NCES, 2019 ). The percentage of students served under IDEA in school year 2018–2019 was highest for AI/AN students (18%), followed by Black students (16%), White students and students of two or more races (14% each), Hispanic students (13%), Pacific Islander students (11%), and Asian students (7%) ( Hussar et al., 2020 ). In summary, it is critical to recognize issues related to the high demand for speech–language pathology services in Native American communities and understand the limitations of resources, supports, and research to address the needs of Native American children to maximize their educational success.

RESEARCH TO PRACTICE

Based on NCES data, a higher proportion of Native American children and their families may need speech–language pathology services. Unfortunately, though, there is limited research describing speech, language, and hearing services or considerations with young Native American children. There is a need to increase research involving Native American children, youth, and adults across multiple clinical and educational settings to address the issues and concerns of those who provide services and those who conduct research. It is evident that the scientific enterprise and its application to the delivery of speech and language services to Native Americans are underrepresented in the major journals of speech-language pathology. Advancing research and practices in the discipline when there is limited research on speech and language development is challenging. Furthermore, taking into consideration cultural and linguistic variables in research and interventions with Native American populations is critically important ( Westby & Vining, 2004 ).

Previous publication topics

In the past several decades, a few publications have focused on increasing awareness of cultural and linguistic considerations in assessing communication skills of Native American children ( Harris, 1985 ; Long & Vining, 2000 ). More recently, Native American professionals have highlighted considerations in assessing Native American children who are dual-language learners ( Vining et al., 2017 ).

Dynamic assessment

The earliest work in the application of dynamic assessment with Native American children ( Robinson-Zanartu & Aganza, 2000 ; Ukrainetz et al., 2000 ) provided a starting point for this work. Access to culturally based assessment strategies has recently focused on the application of dynamic assessment with Navajo children ( Henderson et al., 2018 ).

Culturally based intervention

Professionals desiring to infuse Native American culture into their practice have expressed concern about the limited resources that are accessible. Previous research has involved use of culturally based storybooks in speech, language, and literacy interventions. For example, several articles have focused on culturally sensitive methods for evaluating and fostering literacy skills in Native American students ( Gillespie, 2016 ; Kay-Raining Bird & Vetter, 1994 ; Loeb & Redbird, 2008 ; Loeb et al., 2011 ; Westby, 2005 ). Scholars also have promoted culturally responsive education of elementary students by understanding the discourse patterns of the Native American students and teaching them the mainstream narrative structures to facilitate their comprehension and production of these narratives ( Westby et al., 2002 ; Westby & Roman, 1995 ).

Differentiated instruction

Inglebret and her colleagues have advocated for the application of culturally based differentiated instruction using stories to foster culturally congruent practice in speech–language pathology ( Inglebret & Banks-Joseph, 2014 ; Inglebret et al., 2007 , 2008 , 2011 ). These approaches to adapting content and materials have supported cultural responsiveness in delivery of speech and language services in Native American communities and the educational success of Native American students.

Indigenous languages

It is important to have background knowledge in the status of tribal or Indigenous languages as well as English to determine appropriate language services. Native American speech–language pathologists (SLPs) have struggled with the lack of research in the languages spoken by the children they serve. In recent years, researchers have focused on describing the status of Indigenous language use as well as how Native American children are learning and using Indigenous languages ( Krauss, 1998 ). Haynes et al. (2010) reviewed the literature on the assessment of Indigenous languages and had little success in identifying instruments that assessed native languages. Their description of four categories of Indigenous learner types is especially helpful when considering future assessment practices with Indigenous languages. These categories are as follows: (1) bilingual learners , those who speak the native language in the home as a primary language; (2) heritage learner s, those who are exposed to the native language in the home, but family members have shifted to English; (3) second language learners , those who have no exposure to the native language in the home, though the language is spoken in the community; and (4) language reclamation , those who do not have opportunities to acquire their native language because it is not used in the home or in the community ( Haynes et al., 2010 , p. 6). These categories illustrate the complexity of examining language acquisition and language disorders when Native American children are learning two or more languages. There has been very little research focusing on Native languages, the impact of exposure to Native languages, performance on assessment instruments, and language disorders in Native American children.

TOPICAL ISSUES

This issue of Topics of Language Disorders focuses on aspects of language assessment and intervention involving Native American children to assist the readership in better understanding this population and to provide practical strategies to support their language skills. The topics explored are contemporary and are of particular importance and interest to higher education faculty, graduate students, SLPs, special educators, and others concerned with language and its disorders. The first article by Henderson (this issue) is a clinical tutorial on the application of dynamic assessment as an alternative assessment method for Navajo children. The second article by McConnell and Loeb (this issue) reports research findings using narratives produced by AI children under three task conditions. The third article by Ferris, Guiberson, and Bush (this issue) explores the application of ethnographic interviewing to capture the perspectives of Native American caregivers regarding their developmental priorities for their children. The last article by Gillispie (this issue) describes the use of shared book reading and culturally responsive teaching strategies to support language intervention with Native American children.

Language assessment

The article, “Navajo: A Dynamic Assessment Clinical Tutorial,” bridges Henderson's research with practice. He provides information on Navajo culture and language and the impact of Navajo-influenced English on students' performance on standardized assessments. He describes the limitations and bias of norm-referenced standardized assessment instruments for Navajo children and calls for the use of culturally and linguistically appropriate assessments to prevent their overrepresentation in speech and language therapy. He summarizes his study ( Henderson & Restrepo, 2016 ) that investigated performance of Navajo children with and without developmental language delay. His application of dynamic assessment tailored to Navajo children provides a promising alternative assessment method to support SLPs in discriminating language differences from language disorders.

Narrative production

In the second article, McConnell and Loeb describe their study, titled “Production of Narratives by At-Risk American Indian Children in the Midwest.” They investigated the microstructure and macrostructure features of narratives produced by AI children across three storytelling task formats by employing Peterson and McCabe's (1983) narrative categories. The results were compared with a database of American mainstream children and differences were observed between the Native American children sampled and those in the database. Given the reality that there is very little narrative research conducted with AI children, this study has the potential to inform SLPs' assessment of narratives. Because speech–language pathology research has focused on using the story grammar framework ( Stein & Glenn, 1979 ), this study also may provide alternative approaches deemed culturally responsive. The authors' overview of studies with Native American children may be beneficial to practitioners and researchers for future cross-comparative studies.

Intervention

In the third article, “Native American Caregivers' Developmental Priorities for Young Children: Implications for Intervention,” Ferris, Guiberson, and Bush describe their qualitative study of Native American caregivers' perspectives on child development and school readiness. Through ethnographic interviewing and descriptive thematic analysis, the authors detail themes that Native American caregivers living in Wyoming identified as most important. Important themes included supporting Native culture and language preservation, teaching preacademic skills, promoting social and emotional competence, and teaching self-care and independence. The authors identify clinical implications for work with caregivers and young Native American children.

In the final article, “Culturally Responsive Language and Literacy Instruction With Native American Children,” Gillispie discusses the application of culturally responsive teaching ( Gay, 2010 ) in preschool settings serving Native American children in northeast Kansas. The Culturally Responsive Early Literacy Instruction (CRELI) curriculum was designed by the author as part of a training grant and based on the author's knowledge from working with the Prairie Band Potawatomi Nation's Little Nations Academic Center. CRELI also was designed and implemented in collaboration with Native American and other graduate students and resulted in a culturally affirming, comprehensive curriculum that supported preschool-aged Native American children, as well as their teachers and families.

Much more research is needed with Native America children in areas such as expository language, language profiles in children with concomitant disorders, and Native language and English language development in Native American children from linguistically diverse backgrounds. Intervention and treatment research is needed, as well as studies that examine the accuracy of language disorder and other diagnoses for children who are Native American. There may be misdiagnosis occurring, including overdiagnosis of learning and language disabilities or underidentification of disorders such as autism. Either way, this speaks to the need for culturally consistent practices for all Native American children, including those who are at risk but not identified as having a disability. This issue of Topics in Language Disorders makes a substantial contribution to culturally consistent and evidence-based language assessment and interventions for Native American children, and it is our hope that this work inspires additional research that leads to more evidence-based practices with this important and overlooked segment of the population.

—Christine B. Vining, PhD, CCC-SLP —Mark Guiberson, PhD, CCC-SLP Issue Editors

• Cited Here |
• Google Scholar
• + Favorites
• View in Gallery

• Admissions Overview
• Undergraduate Admissions
• Graduate Degree Programs
• International Student Admissions
• Academics Overview
• Undergraduate Majors & Minors
• Graduate School
• Purdue Online Learning
• Tour Purdue’s Campus
• Research and Innovation Overview
• Research & Partnerships
• Corporate & Global Partnerships
• Purdue Research Foundation
• About Purdue
• Office of the President
• Commitment to Free Speech
• Student Life at Purdue
• Purdue Activity & Wellness
• Campus Inclusion
• Prospective Students
• Current Students
• Faculty and Staff
• Purdue Northwest
• Purdue Fort Wayne
• Purdue Global
• Purdue Online

Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences Research

In Purdue’s Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences (SLHS), faculty and students collaborate to make discoveries that define cutting-edge clinical practice and advance basic scientific knowledge related to human communication.

Research Areas

Hearing science; hearing disorders.

Faculty who study hearing science and disorders in the Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences focus on a variety of topics, including computational modeling, hidden hearing loss, neurophysiology and electrophysiology, psychophysics and speech perception.

Language Science; Language Disorders and Disabilities

Researchers in the Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences study language science, disorders and disabilities to advance discovery across topics such as aphasia, autism spectrum disorder (ASD), language development, language disorders, linguistics and sign language.

Speech, Swallowing and Voice Science; Speech, Swallowing, Voice Disorders

To improve quality of life and help people communicate effectively, faculty in the Department of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences investigate dysphagia, fluency disorders, neurogenic problems, speech sound disorders, and voice disorders.

Center and Institutes/Laboratories

Aphasia Brain Injury Communication and Cognition (ABC) Lab

The Aphasia Brain Injury Communication and Cognition (ABC) Lab studies the behavioral and neural factors that support the recovery of language and cognition in people who have aphasia and/or a traumatic brain injury. The lab conducts both basic and applied research studies with the goal of developing interventions for language comprehension and cognition.

Arianna LaCroix

Lab Website

Attention and Neurodevelopmental Disorders (AtteND) Lab

The Attention and Neurodevelopmental Disorders Lab investigates attentional strengths and weaknesses in individuals who are at risk for or diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) to identify new targets for intervention as well as improve current intervention strategies. This research provides insight into how attention affects the development of social and communicative abilities in typically developing children and children with ASD.

Brandon Keehn

Aphasia Research Laboratory

The Aphasia Research Laboratory focuses on how language processing is affected by aging and acquired neurological conditions (stroke, Parkinson’s disease) and identifies the factors that facilitate language recovery in individuals with aphasia. The findings provide insight into how language is stored and processed in the brain and aid in the development of intervention approaches for people with aphasia.

Auditory Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory

When listening to speech in a noisy public place, most adults find it easier to understand the speaker if they can see the person’s face because facial movements can provide a great deal of information about speech content. However, this ability to use visual speech cues when the sound quality is poor is not present at birth and develops gradually in children. To better understand this, the Auditory Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory studies how and when children learn to use visual speech information and how their language development may be negatively affected if they fail to acquire this skill. We work with typically developing children and also with children who had delayed language acquisition.

Natalya Kaganovich

Auditory Electrophysiology Laboratory

The Auditory Electrophysiology Laboratory uses electrophysiological measures to understand the neural representation of complex sounds in normal and impaired ears at the brainstem and cortical levels and how these representations are shaped by experience. The long-term objective is to enhance the encoding of behaviorally relevant dimensions of sounds and determine their relative roles in the temporal structure of sound. We are also interested in evaluating the nature of the interplay between early sensory level processes and later cognitive levels of processing.

Ravi Krishnan

Auditory Neurophysiology and Modeling Lab

Research in the Auditory Neurophysiology and Modeling Laboratory involves the coordinated use of neurophysiology, psychoacoustics and computational modeling. This multidisciplinary approach provides a powerful framework to enhance our understanding of the effects of different types of sensorineural hearing loss on neural and perceptual responses to sound. This knowledge will be extremely valuable for developing diagnostic tests, evaluating the limitations of current hearing aids and suggesting novel strategies for hearing aids and cochlear implants.

Brain Research in Auditory Neuroscience (BRAiN) Lab

The BRAiN Lab investigates auditory perception and speech processing in adults with cochlear implants. The goal of this research is to better understand the individual differences in auditory perception that impact speech-recognition outcomes in cochlear implant recipients.

Maureen Shader

Child Language Research Laboratory

In the Child Language Research Laboratory, we study how children learn to produce and understand words and sentences. We are especially interested in discovering the reasons behind why children with language impairments experience difficulties — and finding ways to help these children overcome their language learning problems. Our studies also include children who are developing language without difficulty, so we can have a clear idea of the learning patterns associated with typical development.

Laurence B. Leonard

Child Phonology Laboratory

Research in the Child Phonology Laboratory investigates how monolingual and bilingual children learn to produce speech sounds with the goal of developing best practices for assessing and treating children with phonological disorders. In particular, we are interested in better understanding how the ability to perceive speech sounds affects the accurate production of speech.

Françoise Brosseau-Lapré

Cranial Sensorimotor Control and Neurodegeneration Lab – Schaser Research Group

The Schaser Research Group uses advanced imaging tools and an alpha-synuclein fibril seeding approach to study protein aggregation in a mouse model of Parkinson’s disease and Dementia with Lewy Bodies. We specialize in merging clinical issues, animal behavior, and exploration of pathology in the cranial sensorimotor system to characterize and treat voice, communication, and swallowing deficits related to neurodegeneration.

Allison Schaser

In the Purdue I-EaT Lab, we investigate the underlying mechanisms that control swallowing function and eating in adults and children with and without swallowing disorders (dysphagia). The primary studies involve patients with cerebral palsy, stroke and Parkinson’s disease. We aim to use this knowledge to develop and evaluate novel rehabilitative treatments that will be effective, accessible and adhered to by patients to improve their health and quality of life.

Georgia Malandraki

Language Learning and Meaning Acquisition (LLAMA) Lab

Because children have an exceptional ability to learn language, the LLAMA Lab explores the cognitive mechanisms that support this ability. Ongoing research topics include how children understand connections between word meanings, how general learning mechanisms and experience support speech comprehension and early markers of risk for poor language and reading outcomes.

Arielle Borovsky

Motor Speech Lab

The Motor Speech Lab covers a wide range of topics related to quality of life for older adults and individuals with Parkinson’s disease in an effort to treat the changes to speech and cognition that occur as a part of typical aging or as a result of aging-related diseases, such as Parkinson’s disease.

Psychoacoustics Lab

Research in the Psychoacoustics Lab focuses on behavioral measures of peripheral auditory processes in listeners with normal hearing and listeners with cochlear hearing impairment. We are particularly interested in studying dynamic adjustments in response to background noise and use models of auditory signal processing to connect behavior and physiology.

Elizabeth Strickland

Purdue Experimental Amplification Research (EAR) Lab

Research in the Experimental Amplification Research (EAR) Laboratory focuses on auditory processes that contribute to speech perception deficiencies in hearing-impaired listeners and hearing aid processing. Ongoing projects include work on frequency-lowering techniques, wide dynamic range compression and speech enhancement techniques.

Josh Alexander

Purdue Infant Speech Lab

The Purdue Infant Speech Lab explores how language comes to the child by focusing on whether measures of early speech perception, production and the input relate to later language in both typical development and in children at-risk for autism spectrum disorders.

Speech Perception and Cognitive Effort (SPACE) Lab

The Speech Perception and Cognitive Effort Lab focuses on the contribution of cognitive mechanisms — such as working memory and selective attention — to understanding speech in difficult circumstances. For example, this could include a talker with an unfamiliar accent or the presence of competing sounds. We use behavioral and psychophysiological measures to assess speech understanding, cognitive effort and stress in younger and older adults (with and without hearing impairment) under a range of listening conditions. Results of this research provide insight into the cognitive foundations of spoken language understanding and contribute to improving methods for the assessment and treatment of hearing impairment in older listeners.

Alex Francis

Sign Language Research Lab

Research in the Sign Language Research Lab uses theoretical and experimental methods to investigate aspects of sign languages and their similarities and differences to spoken languages. Results from this research are applied to improving deaf education and the quality of life of members of the deaf community. Projects include experimental studies of sign language structure, perception and production. Our work incorporates online questionnaires, psycholinguistic methods, motion capture analysis and neurolinguistics, as well as collaboration with engineers toward automatic recognition of sign language.

Ronnie Wilbur

Voice Lab — Sivasankar Research Group

The goal of the Sivasankar Research Group is to understand why some speakers experience voice disruptions related to prolonged speaking, aging, environmental exposures and disease. We utilize a multidisciplinary approach to understand the causes of voice problems in order to better prevent and treat this common communication disorder.

Preeti M. Sivasankar

Join Our Research Registry

SLHS researchers study how people of all ages hear, speak and understand language to advance our knowledge of how we communicate while also helping those who struggle in these areas.  

WHO CAN SIGN UP? Our studies include healthy adults and children of all ages as well as individuals with concerns or disorders affecting their ability to speak, hear, swallow or communicate. 

HOW DO I SIGN UP? Complete this linked questionnaire , where you will be asked to provide some basic information so we can contact you about eligible studies. By signing up for the registry, you are expressing your interest in learning more about research opportunities. When contacted, you can make a decision whether or not to participate. You can opt out at any time by emailing  [email protected]  or calling 765-494-4229.

Faculty by Research Area

Interdisciplinary training program in auditory neuroscience.

The Interdisciplinary Training Program in Auditory Neuroscience provides graduate student training and research experience to prepare students for independent research careers that can advance understanding of auditory system function using innovative tools and technologies. Graduates of this training program will develop creative solutions, devices and strategies to assist with and prevent hearing loss.

Communicative Disorders Training Program

The Communicative Disorders Training Program is designed to develop the research skills of clinicians and engage basic scientists in the study of communication disorders. Through this program, we can increase the proportion of PhD researchers who make substantive scientific contributions to knowledge of the causes, diagnosis and treatment of communication disorders.

• Careers" data-insights-filter="categories:Careers" id="related_field_careers" /> Careers
• Careers › Gyrfaoedd" data-insights-filter="categories:Careers › Gyrfaoedd" id="related_field_gyrfaoedd" /> Careers › Gyrfaoedd
• Current projects" data-insights-filter="categories:Current projects" id="related_field_projects" /> Current projects
• Events" data-insights-filter="categories:Events" id="related_field_events" /> Events
• Events › CEN events" data-insights-filter="categories:Events › CEN events" id="related_field_cen-events" /> Events › CEN events
• Events › Hub events" data-insights-filter="categories:Events › Hub events" id="related_field_hub-events" /> Events › Hub events
• Learning and development" data-insights-filter="categories:Learning and development" id="related_field_learning-and-development" /> Learning and development
• Learning and development › Practice-based learning" data-insights-filter="categories:Learning and development › Practice-based learning" id="related_field_practice-based-learning" /> Learning and development › Practice-based learning
• Professional guidance" data-insights-filter="categories:Professional guidance" id="related_field_professional-guidance" /> Professional guidance
• RCSLT updates" data-insights-filter="categories:RCSLT updates" id="related_field_rcslt-updates" /> RCSLT updates
• Research" data-insights-filter="categories:Research" id="related_field_research-categories" /> Research
• Students" data-insights-filter="categories:Students" id="related_field_students" /> Students
• Topic area" data-insights-filter="categories:Topic area" id="related_field_topic-area" /> Topic area
• AAC" data-insights-filter="categories:AAC" id="related_field_augmentative-and-alternative-communication" /> AAC
• Acquired motor speech disorders" data-insights-filter="categories:Acquired motor speech disorders" id="related_field_acquired-motor-speech-disorders" /> Acquired motor speech disorders
• Anti-racism" data-insights-filter="categories:Anti-racism" id="related_field_anti-racism" /> Anti-racism
• Aphasia" data-insights-filter="categories:Aphasia" id="related_field_aphasia" /> Aphasia
• Autism" data-insights-filter="categories:Autism" id="related_field_autism" /> Autism
• Awake craniotomy" data-insights-filter="categories:Awake craniotomy" id="related_field_awake-craniotomy" /> Awake craniotomy
• Bilingualism" data-insights-filter="categories:Bilingualism" id="related_field_bilingualism" /> Bilingualism
• Brain injury" data-insights-filter="categories:Brain injury" id="related_field_brain-injury" /> Brain injury
• Children's services" data-insights-filter="categories:Children's services" id="related_field_childrens-services" /> Children's services
• Cleft lip and palate" data-insights-filter="categories:Cleft lip and palate" id="related_field_cleft-lip-and-palate" /> Cleft lip and palate
• COVID-19" data-insights-filter="categories:COVID-19" id="related_field_covid-19" /> COVID-19
• CPD" data-insights-filter="categories:CPD" id="related_field_cpd" /> CPD
• Craniofacial conditions" data-insights-filter="categories:Craniofacial conditions" id="related_field_craniofacial-conditions" /> Craniofacial conditions
• Critical care" data-insights-filter="categories:Critical care" id="related_field_critical-care" /> Critical care
• Deafblindness" data-insights-filter="categories:Deafblindness" id="related_field_deafblindness" /> Deafblindness
• Deafness" data-insights-filter="categories:Deafness" id="related_field_deafness" /> Deafness
• Dementia" data-insights-filter="categories:Dementia" id="related_field_dementia" /> Dementia
• Developmental language disorder" data-insights-filter="categories:Developmental language disorder" id="related_field_developmental-language-disorder" /> Developmental language disorder
• Digital health" data-insights-filter="categories:Digital health" id="related_field_digital-health" /> Digital health
• Dysfluency" data-insights-filter="categories:Dysfluency" id="related_field_dysfluency" /> Dysfluency
• Dysphagia" data-insights-filter="categories:Dysphagia" id="related_field_dysphagia" /> Dysphagia
• Education" data-insights-filter="categories:Education" id="related_field_education" /> Education
• End of life care" data-insights-filter="categories:End of life care" id="related_field_end-of-life-care" /> End of life care
• Head and neck cancer" data-insights-filter="categories:Head and neck cancer" id="related_field_head-and-neck-cancer" /> Head and neck cancer
• Justice" data-insights-filter="categories:Justice" id="related_field_justice" /> Justice
• Learning disabilities" data-insights-filter="categories:Learning disabilities" id="related_field_learning-disabilities" /> Learning disabilities
• LGBTQIA+" data-insights-filter="categories:LGBTQIA+" id="related_field_lgbtqia" /> LGBTQIA+
• Long covid" data-insights-filter="categories:Long covid" id="related_field_long-covid" /> Long covid
• Looked after children" data-insights-filter="categories:Looked after children" id="related_field_looked-after-children" /> Looked after children
• Mental health (adults)" data-insights-filter="categories:Mental health (adults)" id="related_field_mental-health-adults" /> Mental health (adults)
• Motor disorders" data-insights-filter="categories:Motor disorders" id="related_field_motor-disorders" /> Motor disorders
• Neonatal care" data-insights-filter="categories:Neonatal care" id="related_field_neonatal-care" /> Neonatal care
• Networking" data-insights-filter="categories:Networking" id="related_field_networking" /> Networking
• Outcome measurement" data-insights-filter="categories:Outcome measurement" id="related_field_outcome-measurement" /> Outcome measurement
• Progressive neurological disorders" data-insights-filter="categories:Progressive neurological disorders" id="related_field_progressive-neurological-disorders" /> Progressive neurological disorders
• Public health" data-insights-filter="categories:Public health" id="related_field_public-health" /> Public health
• Risk feeding" data-insights-filter="categories:Risk feeding" id="related_field_risk-feeding" /> Risk feeding
• Selective mutism" data-insights-filter="categories:Selective mutism" id="related_field_selective-mutism" /> Selective mutism
• Social communication disorder" data-insights-filter="categories:Social communication disorder" id="related_field_social-communication-disorder" /> Social communication disorder
• Social, emotional and mental health (children)" data-insights-filter="categories:Social, emotional and mental health (children)" id="related_field_social-emotional-and-mental-health-children" /> Social, emotional and mental health (children)
• Speech sound disorders" data-insights-filter="categories:Speech sound disorders" id="related_field_speech-sound-disorders" /> Speech sound disorders
• Stroke" data-insights-filter="categories:Stroke" id="related_field_stroke" /> Stroke
• Stutter" data-insights-filter="categories:Stutter" id="related_field_stutter" /> Stutter
• Telehealth" data-insights-filter="categories:Telehealth" id="related_field_telehealth" /> Telehealth
• Trans voice" data-insights-filter="categories:Trans voice" id="related_field_trans-voice" /> Trans voice
• Upper airway disorders" data-insights-filter="categories:Upper airway disorders" id="related_field_respiratory-care-adults" /> Upper airway disorders
• Visual impairment" data-insights-filter="categories:Visual impairment" id="related_field_visual-impairment" /> Visual impairment
• Voice" data-insights-filter="categories:Voice" id="related_field_voice" /> Voice
• Wellbeing" data-insights-filter="categories:Wellbeing" id="related_field_wellbeing" /> Wellbeing
• Bulletin" data-insights-filter="content-type:Bulletin" id="related_field_bulletin" /> Bulletin
• Campaigns" data-insights-filter="content-type:Campaigns" id="related_field_campaigns" /> Campaigns
• Case study" data-insights-filter="content-type:Case study" id="related_field_case-study" /> Case study
• Document" data-insights-filter="content-type:Document" id="related_field_document" /> Document
• Guidance" data-insights-filter="content-type:Guidance" id="related_field_guidance" /> Guidance
• Hubs" data-insights-filter="content-type:Hubs" id="related_field_hubs" /> Hubs
• Policy" data-insights-filter="content-type:Policy" id="related_field_policy" /> Policy
• Press release" data-insights-filter="content-type:Press release" id="related_field_press-release" /> Press release
• Research" data-insights-filter="content-type:Research" id="related_field_research" /> Research
• Video" data-insights-filter="content-type:Video" id="related_field_video" /> Video
• Webinar" data-insights-filter="content-type:Webinar" id="related_field_webinar" /> Webinar
• England" data-insights-filter="locations:England" id="related_field_england" /> England
• International" data-insights-filter="locations:International" id="related_field_international" /> International
• Northern Ireland" data-insights-filter="locations:Northern Ireland" id="related_field_northern-ireland" /> Northern Ireland
• Scotland" data-insights-filter="locations:Scotland" id="related_field_scotland" /> Scotland
• UK" data-insights-filter="locations:UK" id="related_field_uk" /> UK
• Wales" data-insights-filter="locations:Wales" id="related_field_wales" /> Wales

No search results found

Research priorities, page content, what is a priority setting partnership, research priorities for dysphagia, research priorities for developmental language disorder, research priorities for learning disabilities, what do the research priorities mean for me, next steps and support from the rcslt research team.

The RCSLT has embarked on a project to develop the top priorities for new research in speech and language therapy, using a priority setting partnership (PSP). PSPs enable clinicians, patients and carers to work together to identify and prioritise evidence uncertainties, in particular areas of health and care, that could be answered by research.

It is anticipated that the research priorities identified will be used by researchers, higher education institutes and research funders, to guide future research.

How has the RCSLT addressed setting research priorities?

The RCSLT has used a Research Priorities Working Group to agree the scope and approach to the projects and to oversee the delivery.

In 2015, RCSLT members completed a questionnaire that asked for SLTs’ thoughts on gaps in the evidence base that impact on their delivery of quality care.

Five key clinical areas were identified as those that required a PSP first:

• Learning disabilities
• Developmental language disorders (DLD)

For the first three of these areas, SLTs, patients/service users and other professionals, worked together to use the evidence gaps to develop a list of research questions.

The long list was then prioritised to develop a ‘top 10’ list of questions for each area. This was done via a second online questionnaire involving SLTs, service users and other professionals.

The RCSLT has developed top 10 priorities for research in dysphagia, learning disabilities and developmental language disorders (DLD).

Download resources to learn about the research priorities in dysphagia for the speech and language therapy profession:

• Setting collaborative research priorities in dysphagia poster (PDF)
• Dysphagia: Top 10 adult research priorities (PDF)
• Dysphagia: Top 10 paediatric research priorities (PDF)
• Dysphagia: Top 10 general/non age group specific priorities (PDF)
• Long list of dysphagia research priorities (PDF)
• The methods used in the dysphagia research priorities project have been published in  BMJ Open 2022

Since the priorities were published, there have been annual campaigns to document what research has been conducted in relation to them.

• See projects carried out in the  first 12 months related to the dysphagia research priorities (PDF)  and  download infographics of the project profiles (PDF)
• See projects carried out (PDF)  in the second year since publication, related to the dysphagia research priorities and  download infographics of the project profiles (PDF)

Are you interested in DLD research? If so, we are working with Moor House School and UCL to update our DLD research priorities and translate them into fundable research questions. This process will begin with a survey, where we are collecting information on current priorities in the following areas (of the DLD vision ): diagnosis; support/intervention; schools & workplaces; older children & adults with DLD / independence. Please complete the survey by 13 September 2024. This should take no more than 5-10 minutes.

We have appointed a researcher to lead this project, but if you are interested in contributing to this second phase of the project, either as a clinician or as a researcher, please contact [email protected] .

DLD priorities resources

Download resources to learn about the research priorities in DLD for the speech and language therapy profession:

• Top 10 list of DLD research priorities (PDF)
• Full information about the  DLD research priority setting partnership project (PDF)  is detailed in a report, featuring a foreword from Dorothy Bishop and Courtenay Norbury
• The Top 10 have been presented as an editorial perspective piece in  The Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry  (2022)
• Methods for setting collaborative research priorities in DLD (PDF)
• The methods used in this project have been published in the JoVE journal as a paper (2020) and as a video (2023)
• Long list of developmental language disorder research priorities (PDF)

Since these priorities were published, there has been a campaign to document what research has been conducted in relation to the top 10 priorities.

• See RCSLT members’ current projects relating to the  DLD research priorities (PDF) .

Download resources to learn about the learning disabilities (LD) research priorities for the speech and language therapy profession:

• We revisited and extended the LD PSP project to translate the research priorities into fundable research questions. Information about phase one and two of the project can be found in our updated learning disabilities PSP report (PDF) . An easy read document (PDF) and video version of the report are also available.
• Top 10 list of learning disabilities research priorities (PDF)
• Long list of learning disabilities research priorities (PDF)
• The methods and results of this project have been published in  Tizard learning disability review (2022) .
• A commentary paper which presents reflections from a team of speech and language therapists and the impact that the LD research priorities have had on their work.

Since these priorities were published, there have been two annual campaigns to document what research has been conducted in relation to the top 10 priorities.

• See RCSLT members’  current projects related to the learning disabilities research priorities (PDF)

View the supplementary material to our article published in Tizard Learning Disability Review ‘ Learning disabilities: PSP process, data and documentation’ (PDF) .

There are lots of ways you can use the priorities to support your work.

If you’re a speech and language therapist: 

• Share the priorities with your networks, including service users and families.
• Ask service users and families what they think about the priorities.
• Use the priorities to inform a journal club meeting.
• Discuss the priorities at a team meeting, clinical excellence network (CEN) event.
• Review an article in relation to a priority area for the ‘in the journals’ column in Bulletin ( Email Bulletin for details).
• Carry out a clinical audit or quality improvement project related to a priority area.

If you’re a researcher conducting research in the field of speech and language therapy:

• Let us know about any existing/potential work you know is happening in relation to a priority area.
• Tell us about relevant funding bodies, stakeholders and funding opportunities, particularly local ones.
• Use a priority area to inform your student dissertation project or to develop your research proposal/National Institute for Health Research fellowship application.
• The working group met in 2020 to discuss next steps for the RCSLT priority setting partnership (PSP) project and decided that autism and aphasia clinical areas were no longer priority areas, as Autistica and the  Stroke Association  have already begun their own PSPs in this area.
• Further work is required to ensure full impact of the current top 10 priorities for research, before addressing further clinical areas.
• The methods and findings for translating research priorities to fundable research questions for learning disabilities has been published. Work will begin on developing a translation phase for research priorities relating to DLD in 2024.
• There will be ongoing activities promoting the RCSLT research priorities and translated questions and collating emerging research relating to the priorities.

How can the RCSLT research team support me?

The research team are happy to support your activities in relation to any of the research priorities. We can provide advice about your project, a letter of support and relevant resources to support your activity. We can also help you to share information on the research/activities that you are carrying out.

Get in touch by:

• Starting a conversation on Twitter and tagging  @RCSLTResearch
• Emailing  [email protected]

Is something wrong with this page? Submit feedback

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

• Certification
• Publications
• Continuing Education
• Practice Management
• Audiologists
• Speech-Language Pathologists
• Academic & Faculty
• Audiology & SLP Assistants
• Clinical Topics

We have a number of clinical topics available and will be adding more as topics are developed.

Currently available

• Acquired Apraxia of Speech
• Aerodigestive Disorders
• Apraxia of Speech (Childhood)
• Aural Rehabilitation for Adults
• Augmentative and Alternative Communication
• Autism Spectrum Disorder
• Balance System Disorders
• Central Auditory Processing Disorder
• Cleft Lip and Palate
• Cochlear Implants
• Dysarthria (Adult)
• Dysphagia (Adult)
• Early Intervention
• Executive Function Deficits
• Fluency Disorders
• Gender Affirming Voice and Communication
• Head and Neck Cancer
• Hearing Aids (Adult)
• Hearing Aids (Children)
• Hearing Loss in Adults
• Hearing Loss in Children
• Hearing Screening (Adult)
• Hearing Screening (Childhood)
• Hearing Screening (Newborn)
• Intellectual Disability
• Late Language Emergence
• Orofacial Myofunctional Disorders
• Pediatric Feeding and Swallowing
• Resonance Disorders
• Right Hemisphere Disorder
• Selective Mutism
• Social Communication Disorder
• Speech Sound Disorders: Articulation and Phonology
• Spoken Language Disorders
• Superior Canal Dehiscence
• Tinnitus and Hyperacusis
• Tracheostomy and Ventilator Dependence
• Traumatic Brain Injury (Adult)
• Traumatic Brain Injury (Pediatric)
• Voice Disorders
• Written Language Disorders

Don't see what you are looking for? See also ASHA's Clinical Topics and Disorders .

Contact us at  [email protected]  and let us know what topics you would like to see featured.

In This Section

• Practice Portal Home
• Professional Issues
• Advertising Disclaimer
• Advertise with us

ASHA Corporate Partners

• Become A Corporate Partner

The American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) is the national professional, scientific, and credentialing association for 234,000 members, certificate holders, and affiliates who are audiologists; speech-language pathologists; speech, language, and hearing scientists; audiology and speech-language pathology assistants; and students.

• All ASHA Websites
• Work at ASHA
• Marketing Solutions

Information For

Get involved.

• ASHA Community
• Become a Mentor
• Become a Volunteer
• Special Interest Groups (SIGs)

Connect With ASHA

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 2200 Research Blvd., Rockville, MD 20850 Members: 800-498-2071 Non-Member: 800-638-8255

MORE WAYS TO CONNECT

Media Resources

• Press Queries

Site Help | A–Z Topic Index | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use © 1997- American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

Navigation Menu

Search code, repositories, users, issues, pull requests..., provide feedback.

We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly.

To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation .

• Notifications You must be signed in to change notification settings

INTERSPEECH 2023-2024 Papers: A complete collection of influential and exciting research papers from the INTERSPEECH 2023-24 conference. Explore the latest advances in speech and language processing. Code included. Star the repository to support the advancement of speech technology!

DmitryRyumin/INTERSPEECH-2023-24-Papers

Folders and files.

Repository files navigation

INTERSPEECH 2024 Papers: A complete collection of influential and exciting research papers from the INTERSPEECH 2024 conference. Explore the latest advances in speech and language processing. Code included. ⭐ the repository to support the advancement of speech technology!

The PDF version of the INTERSPEECH 2024 Conference Programme , comprises a list of all accepted full papers, their presentation order, as well as the designated presentation times.

Conference table will be up to date all the time.

Contributors

Contributions to improve the completeness of this list are greatly appreciated. If you come across any overlooked papers, please feel free to create pull requests , open issues or contact me via email . Your participation is crucial to making this repository even better.

Code of conduct

Contributors 41.