Marisa G. Filipe
Sara Cruz2
Andreia S. Veloso
Sónia Frota- 1Center of Linguistics, School of Arts and Humanities, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal
- 2Universidade Lusófona do Porto, Porto, Portugal
- 3Faculty of Psychology and Education Sciences, Center for Psychology at University of Porto, University of Porto, Porto, Portugal
As children with Down syndrome (DS) typically manifest significant delays in language development, the research has pointed out the predictors of later language skills for this clinical population. The purpose of this study was to systematically explore the evidence for early predictors of language outcomes in infants and toddlers with DS from studies published between 2012 and 2022. After the search, nine studies met the inclusion criteria. The results indicated that maternal educational level, adaptive level of functioning, cognitive function, attention skills, communicative intent of the child, early vocalizations, gestures, baby signs, parents’ translation of their children’s gestures into words, and vocabulary level are significant predictors of language outcomes in children with DS. These findings provide a timely and warranted summary of published work that contributes to current understanding of the development of language and communication in DS. They are therefore useful to researchers, clinicians, and families.
Introduction
As language is crucial for learning and academic achievement (Johnson et al., 2010; Conti-Ramsden et al., 2018; Eadie et al., 2021), the development of language skills is essential to meet the increasing demands of modern societies (Duncan et al., 2007). Indeed, research has shown that children with low language abilities are at high risk of difficulties with literacy, academic achievement, and social-emotional and behavioral adjustment (Voci et al., 2006; Zubrick et al., 2007; Tromblin, 2008; Durkin and Conti-Ramsden, 2010; Johnson et al., 2010; Conti-Ramsden et al., 2018). Thus, research on language development is particularly useful.
Previous studies have identified typical trajectories for language development. For example, at the age of 10–12 months, children can discriminate phonemes in their native language (for a review, refer to Kuhl, 2010), begin to understand and utter words, and produce representational and deictic gestures (Fenson et al., 1994; Caselli et al., 2012). At 18 months, typically developing (TD) children reach a lexical repertoire of approximately 50 words and use gesture–word combinations frequently (Fenson et al., 1994; Capirci and Volterra, 2008). Between 20 and 24 months, they increase expressive vocabulary and start to combine words (Fenson et al., 1994; Capirci and Volterra, 2008). Children at the age of 3 years have been found to produce a more complex lexicon, as well as utterances that are grammatically more accurate and richer (for a review, see Guasti, 2017).
Identification of these typical language trajectories is important as many children can experience language delays (Reilly et al., 2007; Zubrick et al., 2007), as a result of biological, cognitive, and environmental factors (Kuhl, 2010; Perani et al., 2011; Riva et al., 2017). In fact, several children diagnosed with neurodevelopmental disorders have language specificities and may later be diagnosed with language impairments. For example, children with Down syndrome (DS; which results from a partial or complete duplication of chromosome 21; Epstein, 1986) display a complex neurocognitive profile including particular patterns of language skills that are characterized by relative strengths and weaknesses. On the one hand, receptive vocabulary (Laws et al., 2015) and the use of gestures (Iverson et al., 2003) appear as relative strengths in the language profile of children with DS. But on the other hand, children with DS frequently display severe language difficulties (Abbeduto et al., 2007a) and are less likely to accompany prelinguistic communicative gestures with vocalizations when compared to TD peers matched by their sensorimotor development (Greenwald and Leonard, 1979). Children with this clinical condition also tend to produce their first words at approximately 21 months (Stoel-Gammon, 2001) in line with their cognitive abilities (Miller, 1999), and expressive language abilities can be delayed when compared to receptive language and non-verbal skills (Chapman and Hesketh, 2000; Abbeduto et al., 2007b). Furthermore, in DS, the development of word segmentation competencies is seriously compromised (Mason-Apps et al., 2018), infants with DS do not use prosody as a facilitator for word segmentation unlike TD infants (Frota et al., 2020), reduced speech intelligibility is common (Kumin, 1994; Kent and Vorperian, 2013), and more substantial delays in expressive syntax than in expressive vocabulary have been reported (Kover et al., 2012). Longitudinal studies have also suggested that vocabulary development in DS is slower compared to the language development of TD peers, which, in turn, seems to be related to general cognitive abilities (Cuskelly et al., 2016; Kaat-van den Os et al., 2017).
To understand how different variables impact development and predict which children are most likely to have language impairments, researchers are identifying early predictors of language trajectories in different subgroups of community cohorts (McKean et al., 2017). In fact, several environmental and child-related factors associated with language delays or impairments have been found, such as male gender, prematurity, low birth weight, perinatal disorders, low income, and low parental education (Nelson et al., 2006; Sansavini et al., 2010; Snowling et al., 2016; Bishop et al., 2017). Other variables may also predict language outcomes in typical and atypical development. For instance, non-verbal requesting is a longitudinal predictor of expressive language development (e.g., Mundy et al., 1995) and prelinguistic communication reveals children’s readiness to acquire language while eliciting language-facilitating responses from parents (Yoder and Warren, 1993; Yoder et al., 1998). Auditory and visual processing in early speech perception has also been shown to be crucial to language outcomes (Friederici, 2006; Kuhl et al., 2008; Ellis et al., 2015), affecting speech segmentation, word learning, and phrase-level processing.
Regarding DS, it is often suggested that the same environmental and child-related predictors found for TD children apply to children with this condition (e.g., Deckers et al., 2019). Indeed, previous studies found that gestures predict language development in children with typical development and DS (Capone and McGregor, 2004; Rowe et al., 2008; Zampini and D’Odorico, 2009). In addition, (i) the use of gestures at 24 and 36 months of age has been shown to predict future vocabulary growth (Zampini and D’Odorico, 2009), (ii) early prosodic development predicted lexical development in similar ways for infants and toddlers with typical development, at-risk for language impairments, or with DS (Sousa et al., 2022), (iii) babbling correlated with later language development (Locatelli et al., 2021) in line with previous studies on TD children (e.g., Lang et al., 2019), and (iv) the relationship between motor and language development was found to become stronger as the age of children increases (Yamauchi et al., 2019), a pattern that is also consistent with findings for TD children (e.g., Alcock and Krawczyk, 2010).
However, research has also suggested that different variables might predict language development in children with DS. Mason-Apps et al. (2018) showed that (i) non-verbal mental skills were the significant longitudinal predictors of language for infants with DS but not for TD infants, (ii) speech segmentation abilities only predicted language outcomes in the TD group, and (iii) while initiating joint attention was critical for TD participants, response to joint attention was more predictive of language scores in infants with DS than in TD participants. Indeed, research has shown important differences in early visual attention abilities and audiovisual speech processing in infants with DS compared to typically developing infants (D’Souza et al., 2016; Pejovic et al., 2021).
As several predictors of language outcomes have been reported in children with DS, the aim of this study was to systematically review the articles that focus on early precursors of language in infants with this genetic condition. We will focus on early predictors that appear before 30 months of age, given the potential of early screening to identify children at risk of developing language difficulties in the first 2 years of life (Määttä et al., 2012). Understanding these early predictors of language variability is important to determine the factors that explain why some children with DS acquire language before others (Sameroff and Chandler, 1975). This could also contribute to the development of an early intervention that facilitates language learning in young children, which is strongly recommended due to the link between language skills and later development (e.g., Luyster et al., 2007).
Methods
This study adopted the method of a systematic review, as required by the Cochrane Collaboration and the PRISMA framework (Moher et al., 2009). In March 2022, using EBSCOhost, the following databases were searched: Academic Search Complete, APA PsyArticles, ERIC, MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, and Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection. The keywords language AND longitudinal OR prospective AND down syndrome OR trisomy 21 OR down’s syndrome were used to conduct the search. The following filters were applied: (i) publication date from 2012 to 2022, (ii) academic journals, and (iii) peer-reviewed. All titles/abstracts identified in the electronic databases were independently screened for eligibility by two authors (MF and SC), according to the following inclusion criteria:
• The study was published in a peer-reviewed journal from 2012 to 2022.
• Participants were followed for a period of 3 months or more in a prospective cohort study.
• The study design was experimental or observational.
• The report presented at least one early (collected before the first 30 months of age) and a later language measure/outcome.
• The subsequent result(s) should include at least one quantitative measure to compare the findings across the studies.
• The report was written in English.
The search identified 150 articles. After the removal of duplicates, if the title and abstract suggested that the study may be appropriate for inclusion, the full-text article was evaluated according to the previously established inclusion criteria. A total of 21 articles were selected for full-text review. Hand searches, which included checking the reference lists of the included journal articles, identified another paper which was also read in full. A total of nine studies were included in the mini-review. Percentage agreement on the selection of included studies was 95.51%. Percentage agreement after consensus building was 100%. The selection of studies is depicted in Figure 1 in a PRISMA flow diagram (Moher et al., 2009). The list of excluded studies along with reasons for exclusion are presented in Supplementary material.
Figure 1. Preferred reporting items in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) flow diagram of the study selection procedure.
From each eligible study, the following data were extracted: first author name, publication date, study location, primary language, number of participants, age at intake, time to follow-up, language predictors, language predictor measures, language outcomes, language outcome measures, main findings, and effect sizes.
Results
A summary of each study characteristics is presented in Table 1. The sample sizes of children with DS ranged from 5 to 26 participants. Almost half of the studies were conducted in the United States, and the remaining studies were carried out in different countries including the Netherlands, Sweden, Italy, and the United Kingdom. Age at intake varied between 10 and 84 months, with follow-ups conducted 6–53 months later.
Table 1. Characteristics of the included studies.
Several predictors of language outcomes were evaluated, namely, socioeconomic status, general cognitive function, developmental level, adaptative level of functioning, auditory working memory, attention skills, joint attention, behavioral and emotional problems, temperament, auditory discrimination, number of communication partners, level of communicative intent, book reading experiences, parents’ translations of child gestures, gestures, signs, initiation of behavioral requests, speech segmentation, consonant use, vocabulary, and phonological/phonemic awareness (cf. Table 1).
The following language outcomes were evaluated: consonant production, functional intelligibility, auditory comprehension, expressive communication, referents later expressed in speech, receptive and expressive vocabulary, vocabulary growth, and receptive and expressive language. Language measures varied between the studies. The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories and the Communication Play Protocol were the most common language measures employed (cf. Table 1).
The results showed that most of the language outcomes were related to vocabulary. Regarding language predictors, adaptive level of functioning, vocabulary skills, maternal educational status, level of communicative intent of the child, attention skills, phonological/phonemic awareness (Deckers et al., 2019), parents’ translation of their children’s gestures into words (Dimitrova et al., 2016), baby signs (Özçaliskan et al., 2016), general cognitive function (Kaat-van den Os et al., 2017; including non-verbal mental ability: Mason-Apps et al., 2018), and joint attention (Zampini et al., 2015; responding to join attention: Mason-Apps et al., 2018) were the significant predictors of vocabulary skills. Non-verbal mental ability and responding to join attention were also the predictives of auditory comprehension (Mason-Apps et al., 2018). Furthermore, a significant positive correlation was found between the age at which a child expressed referents uniquely in gesture and the mean age they were expressed later in speech (Özçalışkan et al., 2017). Finally, a high number of different true consonants at early ages was associated with a higher consonant production measured at follow-up (Nyman et al., 2021).
Discussion
This review contributed to a better understanding of early predictors (before 30 months of age) of language outcomes in children with DS. This enhances our theoretical understanding of language development by revealing the factors that underpin language acquisition. Identifying language predictors is critical to promote the early identification of individuals with language impairments. In general, the studies included in the review show that most children with DS make positive language gains that are evident in vocabulary measurements. Although it is difficult to draw strong conclusions based on the limited evidence available, it is becoming increasingly clear that early predictors of later language development may be present in the first 30 months of life. Based on the results of this review, the predictors of language outcomes in DS will be discussed in the following paragraphs.
Between 2 and 7 years of age, maternal educational level appears to be a predictor of later expressive vocabulary in DS (Deckers et al., 2019). Indeed, previous research had also suggested that mothers of TD children from a higher socioeconomic status used longer utterances and a more diverse vocabulary when talking to their toddlers, which was associated with greater vocabulary growth (Hoff, 2003).
Evidence for the adaptive level of functioning (i.e., the child’s level of participation in daily tasks involving conceptual, social, and practical skills) was also found as an early predictor of expressive and receptive vocabulary in children with DS, between 2 and 7 years of age (Deckers et al., 2019). This highlights that language development and the adaptative level of functioning might be interrelated. Indeed, previous studies with individuals with DS highlighted stronger skills in daily living activities and socialization compared with the relative weaknesses in motor and communication skills (e.g., Van Duijn et al., 2010). Probably, children with DS who are more likely to show social competence will elicit more reactions from communication partners, experience different social contexts, and learn more different words, while the use of language to communicate may in turn increase the ability to manage social situations. However, it is important to highlight that language development and the adaptative level of functioning are interrelated and growth in one skill might affect the functioning of the other.
We also found that, before 2 years of age, cognitive domains such as non-verbal mental ability (Mason-Apps et al., 2018), play skills, information processing, memory, habituation skills, and reasoning abilities (named by the authors as general cognitive function; Kaat-van den Os et al., 2017) predict vocabulary growth in DS. Furthermore, non-verbal mental ability was also found to predict auditory comprehension (Mason-Apps et al., 2018). Although research has shown that language outcomes in DS are not merely a result of a cognitive disability (e.g., Dodd and Thompson, 2001), the studies included in this review highlighted that several cognitive skills predicted language outcomes showing a clear link between cognitive skills and language learning. This is not surprising since domain-general abilities apply across different kinds of tasks (Federmeier et al., 2020).
A finding that is also evident in the present review is that attention skills found to predict language outcomes in TD children were also visible in children with DS. Namely, at 19 and 24 months of age (respectively, Zampini et al., 2015; Mason-Apps et al., 2018), joint attention predicted language outcomes, and between 2 and 7 years of age, attention skills predicted expressive vocabulary (Deckers et al., 2019). These results are in line with the previous studies for typically developing children. For instance, in TD 1-year-olds, the effect of maternal education and warm parenting on vocabulary growth was found to be mediated by attention skills and parent–child book reading when the children completed 3 years of age (Farrant and Zubrick, 2012). Furthermore, in TD individuals, higher attention demands negatively affect the aspects of spoken vocabulary (Hula et al., 2007). Thus, attention skills are important for language development in TD and in DS, probably because children with greater attention skills may be more likely to experience more opportunities for language learning.
We also found that, between 2 and 7 years of age, the level of communicative intent could be a predictor of later expressive vocabulary for children with DS (Deckers et al., 2019). Indeed, previous research has reported a result along similar lines for TD toddlers, showing that the level of communicative intent is a predictor of later language outcomes (Wetherby et al., 2002). Higher rates of communication could increase the opportunities for interaction and shape communication development (McCathren, 2000). For example, Yoder et al. (1994) showed that mothers provided more verbal modeling when children have a higher communicative intent.
Our findings also highlighted that consonant measures might be useful in evaluating toddlers with DS, namely, the number of true consonants assessed from 12 to 22 months of age might predict later consonant production (Nyman et al., 2021). A continuity between early vocalizations and language outcomes in atypical and typical development has been suggested in the literature. For instance, canonical babbling (which consists of consonant-vowel-syllables with a rapid transition between them) is commonly used in the study of early vocalizations in children at risk of language difficulties (Nyman et al., 2021). For TD, the early consistent use of consonants has also been associated with better expressive vocabulary (McGillion et al., 2017).
Children with DS are as likely as TD children to point to and request objects using gestures prior to using words, and our review highlighted that, at 30 months of age, the onset of referents expressed uniquely in gestures could predict the onset of similar spoken words (Özçaliskan et al., 2016). Also, at 1 year of age, parents’ translation of children’s gestures into words might predict later vocabulary development (Dimitrova et al., 2016). This is in line with what previous findings have suggested that parents gather information from the gestures their children produce and tailor their verbal responses to the communicative interests of the child (Goldin-Meadow et al., 2007; Olson and Masur, 2011). These parents’ translations of child gestures could help the child to map the word to the object of interest conveyed in gesture. Thus, children’s gestures probably provide cues to the parents about the child’s readiness to learn a particular word (Dimitrova et al., 2016).
Also related to gestures, an important finding is that baby signs (i.e., iconic or arbitrary signs intentionally taught by adults) at 2.5 years of age may be positively related to later vocabulary outcomes in children with DS (Özçaliskan et al., 2016). Baby signs are learned in the everyday context when a parent produces signs to refer to a particular object. The use of these repeated signed symbols might create a state symbol stand for objects (DeLoache, 2004) that could help children with DS to move from a repertoire of signed symbols to a repertoire of words. Thus, findings from this review seem especially significant considering current knowledge about the importance of early non-verbal communicative skills for the prediction of later language outcomes.
Finally, our results showed that a particularly important behavioral domain is the use of vocabulary skills as a key precursor to language development. Deckers et al. (2019) found that receptive vocabulary, between 2 and 7 years of age, was a predictor of later expressive and receptive vocabulary. A similar conclusion was reached by other studies. For instance, in children with DS, early receptive vocabulary skills tend to be a predictor of receptive and expressive vocabulary (Chapman et al., 2000; Chiat and Roy, 2008). However, Zampini and D’Odorico (2013) assessed children with DS from 2 years of age and showed that individual differences at 48 months could be explained by vocabulary size only at 36 and 42 months.
It seems that some predictors had the same facilitative effect for TD children and children with DS, such as the parents’ translation of gestures into words (Dimitrova et al., 2016). However, our review also emphasized that early predictors of language outcomes might be different for the two groups: (i) the time interval from when a referent was observed in gesture and its observation in speech was longer for DS compared to TD (Özçalışkan et al., 2017); (ii) deictic gestures reliably predicted expressive vocabulary size for TD children, but it was baby signs (and not deictic gestures) that predicted expressive vocabulary development for children with DS (Özçaliskan et al., 2016); (iii) non-verbal mental skills predicted language for infants with DS but not for TD children (Mason-Apps et al., 2018); (iv) speech segmentation abilities predicted language outcomes only for TD children (Mason-Apps et al., 2018); and (v) response to joint attention was more predictive of language outcomes in children with DS than in TD peers (Mason-Apps et al., 2018).
This review offers systematic information for researchers, families, and clinicians on language development over time and on language outcomes for individuals with DS. Further research should focus on the yet to be fully studied early predictors of language impairments, and the association between early and later outcomes in DS must be confirmed in larger cohorts. Furthermore, to attain the goal of identifying predictors of language and communication impairments in DS, future studies should combine a set of innovative features, as proposed, for example, within the Predictors of Language Outcomes Project (PLOs)1 : (1) inclusion of early measures and later assessments of language abilities for several at-risk groups for language impairments enabling cross-group comparisons; (2) multimethodology approach to a set of potential early predictors of later language outcomes, which combines quantitative and qualitative measures but also other non-invasive methods such as eye gaze, eye tracking, and brain measures; and (3) examination of several language domains at the word and phrase levels (e.g., stress discrimination, word learning, and intonation). This will offer a timely opportunity to promote more effective methods of screening, prevention, early intervention, and diagnosis of language impairments.
In sum, this systematic review shows that there are only a few comprehensive studies that have explored key early predictors of later language acquisition in DS. Although it is difficult to draw strong conclusions based on the relatively limited evidence available, it is becoming increasingly clear that predictors of later language development could be evident in the 5 years of life. Overall, this review confirms that both child-related factors (e.g., maternal education) and prelinguistic communication could predict later language for infants with DS. One important behavioral domain that has received particular attention as a key precursor to language for this clinical population is non-verbal communicative skills such as gestures and signs, together with early vocabulary measures. Furthermore, domain-general processes such as non-verbal cognitive skills have been shown to account for some variations in later language outcomes. However, more studies are needed to identify which factors are the most robust predictors of language development for children with DS, and whether these predictors differ between different clinical populations. A better understanding of the developmental factors that underlie, facilitate, and predict language acquisition in DS would shed light on the nature of this disorder and allow the refinement of targeted early interventions. Such an endeavor would be very relevant for policymakers and service providers to support individuals with DS throughout their lives.
Author contributions
MF and SF contributed to the conception and design of the work. MF and SC reviewed the abstracts and the manuscript. MF and AV obtained the data from the selected articles. MF prepared the first draft of the manuscript. SF and AV revised the manuscript critically for important intellectual content. MF, AV, and SF revised the last version of the manuscript. All authors contributed to the article and approved the submitted version.
Funding
This research was supported by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (2020.01866.CEECIND; PTDC/LLT-LIN/1115/2021) in conjunction with the European Regional Development Fund from the EU, Portugal 2020, and Lisboa 2020 (PTDC/LLT-LIN/29338/2017).
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Publisher’s note
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.
Supplementary material
The Supplementary Material for this article can be found online at: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.934490/full#supplementary-material
Footnotes
References
Abbeduto, L., Brady, N., and Kover, S. T. (2007a). Language development and Fragile X Syndrome: Profiles, syndrome-specificity, and within-syndrome differences. Ment. Retard. Dev. Disabil. Res. Rev. 13, 36–46. doi: 10.1002/mrdd.20142
Abbeduto, L., Warren, S. F., and Conners, F. A. (2007b). Language development in Down Syndrome: From the prelinguistic period to the acquisition of literacy. Ment. Retard. Dev. Disabil. Res. Rev. 13, 247–261. doi: 10.1002/mrdd.20158
Alcock, K. J., and Krawczyk, K. (2010). Individual differences in language development: Relationship with motor skill at 21 months. Dev. Sci. 13, 677–691. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2009.00924.x
Bishop, D. V. M., Snowling, M. J., Thompson, P. A., and Greenhalgh, T. (2017). Phase 2 of CATALISE: A multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 58, 1068–1080. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12721
Capirci, O., and Volterra, V. (2008). Gesture and speech: The emergence and development of a strong and changing partnership. Gesture 8, 22–44. doi: 10.1075/gest.8.1.04cap
Capone, N. C., and McGregor, K. K. (2004). Gesture development: A review for clinical and research practices. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 47, 173–186. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2004/015)
Caselli, M. C., Rinaldi, P., Stefanini, S., and Volterra, V. (2012). Early action and gesture “vocabulary” and its relation with word comprehension and production. Child Dev. 83, 526–542. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01727.x
Chapman, R. S., and Hesketh, L. J. (2000). Behavioral phenotype of individuals with Down Syndrome. Ment. Retard. Dev. Disabil. Res. Rev. 6, 84–95. doi: 10.1002/1098-277920006:2<84::AID-MRDD2<3.0.CO;2-P
Chapman, R. S., Seung, H. K., Schwartz, S. E., and Bird, E. K. R. (2000). Predicting language production in children and adolescents with Down Syndrome: The role of comprehension. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 43, 340–350. doi: 10.1044/jslhr.4302.340
Chiat, S., and Roy, P. (2008). Early phonological and sociocognitive skills as predictors of later language and social communication outcomes. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 49, 635–645. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01881.x
Conti-Ramsden, G., Durkin, K., Toseeb, U., Botting, N., and Pickles, A. (2018). Education and employment outcomes of young adults with a history of developmental language disorder. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 53, 237–255. doi: 10.1111/1460-6984.12338
Cuskelly, M., Povey, J., and Jobling, A. (2016). Trajectories of development of receptive vocabulary in individuals with Down Syndrome. J. Policy Pract. Intell. Disabil. 13, 111–119. doi: 10.1111/jppi.12151
Deckers, S. R. J. M., Van Zaalen, Y., Van Balkom, H., and Verhoeven, L. (2019). Predictors of receptive and expressive vocabulary development in children with Down Syndrome. Int. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 21, 10–22. doi: 10.1080/17549507.2017.1363290
DeLoache, J. S. (2004). Becoming symbol-minded. Trends Cogn. Sci. 8, 66–70. doi: 10.1016/j.tics.2003.12.004
Dimitrova, N., Özçalışkan, Ş., and Adamson, L. B. (2016). Parents’ translations of child gesture facilitate word learning in children with Autism, Down Syndrome and typical development. J. Autism Dev. Disord. 46, 221–231. doi: 10.1007/s10803-015-2566-7
Dodd, B., and Thompson, L. (2001). Speech disorder in children with Down’s syndrome. J. Intell. Disabil. Res. 45, 308–316. doi: 10.1046/j.1365-2788.2001.00327.x
D’Souza, D., D’Souza, H., Johnson, M. H., and Karmiloff-Smith, A. (2016). Audio-visual speech perception in infants and toddlers with Down Syndrome, Fragile X Syndrome, and Williams Syndrome. Infant Behav. Dev. 44, 249–262. doi: 10.1016/j.infbeh.2016.07.002
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., et al. (2007). School readiness and later achievement. Dev. Psychol. 43, 1428–1446. doi: 10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428
Durkin, K., and Conti-Ramsden, G. (2010). Young people with specific language impairment: A review of social and emotional functioning in adolescence. Child Lang. Teach. Ther. 26, 105–121. doi: 10.1177/0265659010368750
Eadie, P., Bavin, E. L., Bretherton, L., Cook, F., Gold, L., Mensah, F., et al. (2021). Predictors in infancy for language and academic outcomes at 11 years. Pediatrics 147:e20201712. doi: 10.1542/peds.2020-1712
Ellis, E. M., Borovsky, A., Elman, J. L., and Evans, J. L. (2015). Novel word learning: An eye-tracking study. Are 18-month-old late talkers really different from their typical peers? J. Commun. Disord. 58, 143–157. doi: 10.1016/j.jcomdis.2015.06.011
Epstein, C. J. (1986). The consequences of chromosome imbalance. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Farrant, B. M., and Zubrick, S. R. (2012). Early vocabulary development: The importance of joint attention and parent-child book reading. First Lang. 32, 343–364. doi: 10.1177/0142723711422626
Federmeier, K. D., Jongman, S. R., and Szewczyk, J. M. (2020). Examining the role of general cognitive skills in language processing: A window into complex cognition. Curr. Direct. Psychol. Sci. 29, 575–582. doi: 10.1177/0963721420964095
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. J., Pethick, S. J., et al. (1994). Variability in early communicative development. Monogr. Soc. Res. Child Dev. 59, 1–173. doi: 10.2307/1166093
Friederici, A. D. (2006). The neural basis of language development and its impairment. Neuron 52, 941–952. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2006.12.002
Frota, S., Pejovic, J., Severino, C., and Vigário, M. (2020). Looking for the edge: Emerging segmentation abilities in atypical development. Proc. Speech Prosody 2020, 814–818. doi: 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2020-166
Goldin-Meadow, S., Goodrich, W., Sauer, E., and Iverson, J. (2007). Young children use their hands to tell their mothers what to say. Dev. Sci. 10, 778–785. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-7687.2007.00636.x
Greenwald, C. A., and Leonard, L. B. (1979). Communicative and sensorimotor development of Down’s Syndrome children. Am. J. Ment. Defic. 84, 296–303.
Hoff, E. (2003). The specificity of environmental influence: Socioeconomic status affects early vocabulary development via maternal speech. Child Dev. 74, 1368–1378. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00612
Hula, W. D., McNeil, M. R., and Sung, J. E. (2007). Is there an impairment of language-specific attentional processing in aphasia? Brain Lang. 103, 240–241. doi: 10.1016/j.bandl.2007.07.023
Iverson, J. M., Longobardi, E., and Caselli, M. C. (2003). Relationship between gestures and words in children with Down’s syndrome and typically developing children in the early stages of communicative development. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 38, 179–197. doi: 10.1080/1368282031000062891
Johnson, C. J., Beitchman, J. H., and Brownlie, E. B. (2010). Twenty-year follow-up of children with and without speech-language impairments: Family, educational, occupational, and quality of life outcomes. Am. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 19, 51–65. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360(2009/08-0083)
Kaat-van den Os, D. T., Volman, C., Jongmans, M., and Lauteslager, P. (2017). Expressive vocabulary development in children with Down Syndrome: A longitudinal study. J. Policy Pract. Intell. Disabil. 14, 311–318. doi: 10.1111/jppi.12212
Kent, R. D., and Vorperian, H. K. (2013). Speech impairment in Down Syndrome: A review. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 56, 178–210. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2012/12-0148)
Kover, S. T., McDuffie, A., Abbeduto, L., and Brown, W. T. (2012). Effects of sampling context on spontaneous expressive language in males with Fragile X Syndrome or Down Syndrome. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 55, 1022–1038. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/11-0075)
Kuhl, P. K. (2010). Brain mechanisms in early language acquisition. Neuron 67, 713–727. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.08.038
Kuhl, P. K., Conboy, B. T., Coffey-Corina, S., Padden, D., Rivera-Gaxiola, M., and Nelson, T. (2008). Phonetic learning as a pathway to language: New data and native language magnet theory expanded (NLM-e). Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 363, 979–1000. doi: 10.1098/rstb.2007.2154
Kumin, L. (1994). Intelligibility of speech in children with Down Syndrome in natural settings: Parents’ perspective. Percept. Mot. Skills 78, 307–313. doi: 10.2466/pms.1994.78.1.307
Lang, S., Bartl-Pokorny, K. D., Pokorny, F. B., Garrido, D., Mani, N., Fox-Boyer, A. V., et al. (2019). Canonical Babbling: A marker for earlier identification of late detected developmental disorders? Curr. Dev. Disord. Rep. 6, 111–118. doi: 10.1007/s40474-019-00166-w
Laws, G., Briscoe, J., Ang, S. Y., Brown, H., Hermena, E., and Kapikian, A. (2015). Receptive vocabulary and semantic knowledge in children with SLI and children with Down syndrome. Child Neuropsychol. 21, 490–508. doi: 10.1080/09297049.2014.917619
Locatelli, C., Onnivello, S., Antonaros, F., Feliciello, A., Filoni, S., Rossi, S., et al. (2021). Is the Age of Developmental Milestones a Predictor for Future Development in Down Syndrome? Brain Sci. 11:655. doi: 10.3390/brainsci11050655
Luyster, R., Qiu, S., Lopez, K., and Lord, C. (2007). Predicting outcomes of children referred for Autism using the MacArthur–Bates communicative development inventory. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 50, 667–681. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2007/047)
Määttä, S., Laakso, M. L., Tolvanen, A., Ahonen, T., and Aro, T. (2012). Developmental trajectories of early communication skills. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 55, 1083–1096. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2011/10-0305)
Mason-Apps, E., Stojanovik, V., Houston-Price, C., and Buckley, S. (2018). Longitudinal predictors of early language in infants with Down Syndrome: A preliminary study. Res. Dev. Disabil. 81, 37–51. doi: 10.1016/j.ridd.2017.12.021
McCathren, R. B. (2000). Teacher-implemented prelinguistic communication intervention. Focus Autism Other Dev. Disabil. 15, 21–29. doi: 10.1177/108835760001500103
McGillion, M., Herbert, J. S., Pine, J., Vihman, M., dePaolis, R., Keren-Portnoy, T., et al. (2017). What Paves the Way to Conventional Language? The Predictive Value of Babble, Pointing, and Socioeconomic Status. Child Dev. 88, 156–166. doi: 10.1111/cdev.12671
McKean, C., Wraith, D., Eadie, P., Cook, F., Mensah, F., and Reilly, S. (2017). Subgroups in language trajectories from 4 to 11 years: The nature and predictors of stable, improving and decreasing language trajectory groups. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 58, 1081–1091. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12790
Miller, J. F. (1999). “Profiles of language development in children with Down Syndrome,” in Improving the communication of people with Down Syndrome, eds J. Miller, M. Leddy, and L. A. Leavitt (Baltimore, US: Brookes Publishing), 11–40.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., and Altman, D. G., and Prisma Group (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 6:e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097
Mundy, P., Kasari, C., Sigman, M., and Ruskin, E. (1995). Nonverbal communication and early language acquisition in children with Down Syndrome and in normally developing children. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 38, 157–167. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3801.157
Nelson, H. D., Nygren, P., Walker, M., and Panoscha, R. (2006). Screening for speech and language delay in preschool children: Systematic evidence review for the US preventive services task force. Pediatrics 117, e298–e319. doi: 10.1542/peds.2005-1467
Nyman, A., Strömbergsson, S., Lindström, K., Lohmander, A., and Miniscalco, C. (2021). Speech and language in 5-year-olds with different neurological disabilities and the association between early and later consonant production: Speech/language in neurological disabilities. Dev. Neurorehabil. 24, 408–417. doi: 10.1080/17518423.2021.1899327
Olson, J., and Masur, E. F. (2011). Infants’ gestures influence mothers’ provision of object, action and internal state labels. J. Child Lang. 38, 1028–1054. doi: 10.1017/S0305000910000565
Özçaliskan, S., Adamson, L. B., Dimitrova, N., Bailey, J., and Schmuck, L. (2016). Baby sign but not spontaneous gesture predicts later vocabulary in children with Down Syndrome. J. Child Lang. 43, 948–963. doi: 10.1017/S030500091500029X
Özçalışkan, Ş, Adamson, L. B., Dimitrova, N., and Baumann, S. (2017). Early gesture provides a helping hand to spoken vocabulary development for children with Autism, Down Syndrome, and typical development. J. Cogn. Dev. 18, 325–337. doi: 10.1080/15248372.2017.1329735
Pejovic, J., Cruz, M., Severino, C., and Frota, S. (2021). Early visual attention abilities and audiovisual speech processing in 5–7 month-old Down Syndrome and typically developing infants. Brain Sci. 11:939. doi: 10.3390/brainsci11070939
Perani, D., Saccuman, M. C., Scifo, P., Anwander, A., Spada, D., Baldoli, C., et al. (2011). Neural language networks at birth. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 108, 16056–16061. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1102991108
Reilly, S., Wake, M., Bavin, E. L., Prior, M., Williams, J., Bretherton, L., et al. (2007). Predicting language at 2 years of age: A prospective community study. Pediatrics 120, e1441–e1449. doi: 10.1542/peds.2007-0045
Riva, V., Cantiani, C., Dionne, G., Marini, A., Mascheretti, S., Molteni, M., et al. (2017). Working memory mediates the effects of gestational age at birth on expressive language development in children. Neuropsychology 31, 475–485. doi: 10.1037/neu0000376
Rowe, M. L., Özçalışkan, Ş., and Goldin-Meadow, S. (2008). Learning words by hand: Gesture’s role in predicting vocabulary development. First Lang. 28, 182–199. doi: 10.1177/0142723707088310
Sameroff, A., and Chandler, M. (1975). “Reproductive risk and the continuum of caretaking casualty,” in Review of child development research, eds M. Horowitz, M. Hetherington, S. Scarr-Salapatek, and G. Siegel (Pennsylvania, US: University Park Press), 187–244.
Sansavini, A., Guarini, A., Justice, L. M., Savini, S., Broccoli, S., Alessandroni, R., et al. (2010). Does preterm birth increase a child’s risk for language impairment? Early Hum. Dev. 86, 765–772. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2010.08.014
Snowling, M. J., Duff, F. J., Nash, H. M., and Hulme, C. (2016). Language profiles and literacy outcomes of children with resolving, emerging, or persisting language impairments. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 57, 1360–1369. doi: 10.1111/jcpp.12497
Sousa, R., Silva, S., and Frota, S. (2022). Early prosodic development predicts Lexical development in typical and atypical language acquisition. Proc. Speech Prosody 2022, 387–391.
Stoel-Gammon, C. (2001). Down Syndrome phonology: Developmental patterns and intervention strategies. Down Syndr. Res. Pract. 7, 93–100. doi: 10.3104/reviews.118
Tromblin, B. (2008). “Validating diagnostic standards for specific language impairment using adolescent outcomes,” in Understanding developmental language disorders, eds C. F. Norbury, J. B. Tomblin, and D. V. M. Bishop (London: Psychology Press), 93–114.
Van Duijn, G., Dijkxhoorn, Y., Scholte, E. M., and Van Berckelaer-Onnes, I. A. (2010). The development of adaptive skills in young people with Down Syndrome. J. Intell. Disabil. Res. 54, 943–954. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2010.01316.x
Voci, S. C., Beitchman, J. H., Brownlie, E. B., and Wilson, B. (2006). Social anxiety in late adolescence: The importance of early childhood language impairment. J. Anxiety Disord. 20, 915–930. doi: 10.1016/j.janxdis.2006.01.007
Wetherby, A. M., Allen, L., Cleary, J., Kublin, K., and Goldstein, H. (2002). Validity and reliability of the communication and symbolic behavior scales developmental profile with very young children. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 45, 1202–1218. doi: 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/097)
Yamauchi, Y., Aoki, S., Koike, J., Hanzawa, N., and Hashimoto, K. (2019). Motor and cognitive development of children with Down syndrome: The effect of acquisition of walking skills on their cognitive and language abilities. Brain Dev. 41, 320–326. doi: 10.1016/j.braindev.2018.11.00
Yoder, P. J., and Warren, S. F. (1993). “Can developmentally delayed children’s language development be enhanced through prelinguistic intervention?,” in Enhancing children’s communication: Research foundations for intervention, eds A. P. Kaiser and D. B. Gray (Baltimore, US: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc), 35–61.
Yoder, P. J., Warren, S. F., Kim, K., and Gazdag, G. E. (1994). Facilitating prelinguistic communication skills in young children with developmental delay II: Systematic replication and extension. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 37, 841–851. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3704.841
Yoder, P. J., Warren, S. F., and McCathren, R. B. (1998). Determining spoken language prognosis in children with developmental disabilities. Am. J. Speech Lang. Pathol. 7, 77–87. doi: 10.1044/1058-0360.0704.77
Zampini, L., and D’Odorico, L. (2009). Communicative gestures and vocabulary development in 36-month-old children with Down’s Syndrome. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 44, 1063–1073. doi: 10.1080/13682820802398288
Zampini, L., and D’Odorico, L. (2013). Vocabulary development in children with Down syndrome: Longitudinal and cross-sectional data. J. Intell. Dev. Disabil. 38, 310–317. doi: 10.3109/13668250.2013.828833
Zampini, L., Salvi, A., and D’Odorico, L. (2015). Joint attention behaviours and vocabulary development in children with Down Syndrome. J. Intell. Disabil. Res. 59, 891–901. doi: 10.1111/jir.12191
Keywords: Down syndrome, systematic review, early predictors, language, impairments
Citation: Filipe MG, Cruz S, Veloso AS and Frota S (2022) Early predictors of language outcomes in Down syndrome: A mini-review. Front. Psychol. 13:934490. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2022.934490
Received: 02 May 2022; Accepted: 15 August 2022;
Published: 14 September 2022.
Edited by:
David Saldaña, Seville University, SpainReviewed by:
Sara Onnivello, University of Padua, ItalyVesna Stojanovik, University of Reading, United Kingdom
Copyright © 2022 Filipe, Cruz, Veloso and Frota. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Marisa G. Filipe, bGFiZm9uQGxldHJhcy51bGlzYm9hLnB0