elizabeth crais the university of north carolina at chapel hill telability/watch project january 11,...

43
Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY INFANTS AND TODDLERS WITH (OR AT RISK FOR) COMMUNICATION DEFICITS

Upload: raymond-french

Post on 25-Dec-2015

213 views

Category:

Documents


0 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Elizabeth Crais

The University of NorthCarolina at Chapel Hill

TelAbility/WATCH Project

January 11, 2008

USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY INFANTS AND TODDLERS WITH (OR AT RISK FOR) COMMUNICATION DEFICITS

Page 2: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Where We Are Now?

• Clear evidence that early intervention works• Growing evidence across a variety of disabilities

supports maxim “earlier ID is better”• 10-12% of school-age population receiving special

education services• 12-16% of children have developmental or

behavioral disabilities (Comm. on Child with Dis, 2001)

• 7-24% of 2-3 year olds have social-emotional or behavioral deficits (Briggs-Gowan et al, 2001)

• How early are we identifying these children?

Page 3: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Percentage of Children Identified For EI By Age Range

• 1.6 % Birth to 2 years• 4.9% 3-5 years• 11% 6-18 years (U.S. Department of Education,

2005)• Even among those identified early 0 - 3:

14% 0-1 years32% 1-2 years54% 2-3 years(Part C Update, 2004)

• Most commonly identified early concerns are related to motor or language delays

Page 4: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Are We Using the Best Predictors?

• One of best predictors of child’s future language is child’s current communication performance (Brady, Marquis, Fleming, & McLean, 2004; Facon, Facon-Bollengier, & Gruber, 2002).

• Language skills are a strong predictor of cognitive skills (Brady et al, 2004).

Page 5: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Current Evidence Based Predictors

• Vocal Behaviors• Vocabulary Comprehension• Prelinguistic communication• Gesture Use• Symbolic Play

Page 6: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Vocal Behaviors Predictive of Later Language

– More vocalizations – More consonant-vowel syllables– Rate of vocalization– Rate of vocalizations with

consonants– Rate of vocalizations in interaction

with others (***). (McCathern, Yoder, & Warren, 1999).

– Ability to use sounds is strongest predictor of language skills one year later (First Words)

Page 7: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Prelinguistic Communication

• Rate of prelinguistic communication• Rate of symbol use (especially gestures)• Rate of different symbol use • Significantly correlated with later language

outcomes 12 months later • Amount of prelinguistic communication

predictive of later symbolic communication (Calandrella & Wilcox, 2000).

• Frequency of nonverbal communication in preschoolers with ASD predicts language 1 year later (Sigman & Ruskin, 1999)

Page 8: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Motivation for Our Research in Autism

• Diagnosis of children with autism typically occurs between 2 - 3 years of age

• Diagnosis is rare before two years of age• Yet the literature shows enhanced

outcomes with early identification and intervention

• Thus, our ultimate goal is to identify children with autism even earlier

• But what are the barriers to earlier identification?

Page 9: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Barriers To Early ID Include • Difficulty identifying behaviors that could be

markers for group differences • Need to look for both presence of atypical

behaviors and absence of typical behaviors• Limited knowledge of developmental course

of behaviors that may be common in young children (e.g., repetitive movements, mouthing)

• Therefore, relatively “late” identification makes it difficult to know the course of early development in these children

Page 10: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Retrospective Video Analysis • Ecologically valid methodological tool

for earlier identification of children at very early periods in development (prior to diagnosis)

• Several retrospective video studies of autism suggested young children with autism can be distinguished from typically developing children (Adrien et al., 1993; Baranek, 1999; Osterling and Dawson, 1994)

Page 11: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Retrospective Video Analysis

• UNC researchers have used footage that families provided of their child under two years of age (well before diagnosis).

• Footage representative of a wide range of family play situations.

• Videotapes edited for randomly selected cross-section of situations and events.

• Studies include typically developing infants, infants later diagnosed with autism, and infants diagnosed with developmental delays at 9-12 and 15-18 months of age.(Baranek, 1999; Watson, Crais, Baranek, Roy, & Dykstra, 2004; Lanter, Colgan, McComish, Watson, Baranek, & Crais, submitted).

Page 12: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Possible Behaviors of Interest

• Increasing interest and research in

early prelinguistic behaviors in children developing typically and with autism

• Areas of promise targeted today are gesture use, play development, and relationship between play behaviors and gesture use

• Helpful to first be familiar with typical development in these areas

Page 13: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Development of Gestures: Why Are They Important?

• Early means to communicate

• One of the first signs of intentionality

• Can be used in profiling skills

• Can be helpful in identifying delays

• Important to intervention planning

Page 14: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Gesture Development and Use

• Amount of gesture use can help distinguish between “late talkers” and children with true language deficits (Thal & Tobias, 1992; 1994).

• Early onset of pointing predictive of advanced language skills (Butterworth & Morisette, 1996).

• Use of distal (e.g., show, give, point) gestures predictive of higher rate of communication (McLean, McLean, Brady, & Etter, 1991).

Page 15: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

What Are Gestures?

• Gestures are actions produced with the intent to communicate and are typically expressed using the fingers, hands, and arms, but can also include facial features (e.g., lip smacking for "eating") and body motions (e.g., bouncing for “horsie")

• (Iverson & Thal, 1998)

Page 16: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Age Ranges of Emergence of

Common Gestures

• Reaching 6-9 months• Giving 8-11 months• Showing 8-13 months• Pointing 9-14 months

(Bates et al., 1975; Carpenter, Nagell, Tomasello, 1998; Crais, Douglas, & Campbell, 2004; Masur, 1983)

Page 17: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Functions of Gestures

• Social interaction: initiating or sustaining a social game or routine, providing comfort, teasing, showing off

• Behavior regulation: regulate behavior of others to obtain an object, get them to carry out action, or stop someone from doing something

• Joint attention: direct other’s attention in order to comment on an object or event, provide information on an object or event, or acknowledge shared attention to an object or event

Page 18: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

•Protests 6-8 months•Requests for actions 6-10

months•Requests for objects 6-10

months•Comments 8-11

months•Answering 13-16

months(Carpenter, Mastergeorge, & Coggins,

1983; Crais et al, 2004)

Age of Emergence of Functional Categories

Page 19: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Behavior Regulation

• Protest (use body, push away object with hand/s)

• Request Objects (reach for object, pull on adult’s hand with object, point to obtain object)

• Request Actions (reach to be picked up, do the action)

Social Interaction:

• Seek Attention (body movement, grab hand, bang object)

• Social Games (participate by imitating, initiate games)

• Representational Gestures (“bye bye”, imitation clapping, show functions of objects)

Joint Attention:

• Comment (show object, give object)

Array of Gestures Seen in 9-12 Month Old Children (Crais et al, 2004)

Page 20: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Behavior Regulation:

• Protests (shake head “no”)

• Request Objects (reach while opening & closing hand)

• Request Actions (point, take hand of adult, give object)

Joint Attention:

• Comment (point to object, point to object by request)

Social Interaction:

• Seek Attention (show off)

• Representational Gestures (hug objects, smack lips, clap for excitement/accomplishment),

(Crais et al, 2004)

Array of Additional Gestures Seen in 15-18 Month Old

Children

Page 21: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Results: Comparing Group Means for Gesture Functions at Time 1 (9-

12 m)

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

BR@1 SI@1 JA@1

ASD

DD

TYP

ASD<TYP

DD < TYP(ASD n=24, DD n=14, TYP n=22)

ASD < TYP

Page 22: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Gesture Use In Infants & Toddlers

• Results indicate differences in gesture use between 9-12 month old infants later diagnosed with autism or developmental disabilities and children with typical development.

• Total number of gestures (differences between children with ASD & TYP, DD & TYP)

• Group differences on behavior regulation & joint attention gestures, but not social interaction (9-12 & 15-18 months)

Page 23: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Gestures Seen in SampleAutism Group (n=9)

Total

Type of Gesture (# of each)

12 so big (11), wave (1)

5 peek-a-boo (4), wiggle (1)

5 peek-a-boo (5),

4 clap (2), peek-a-boo (1), wave (1)

3 wave (2), clap (1)

2 shake head no (2)

2 wave (2)

1 wave (1)

1 dancing (1)

Typical Group (n=10)

Total

Type of Gesture (# of each)

9 wave (3), so big (2), kiss (3), shake head (1)

6 clap (2), reach (2), wave (2)

5 clap (2), dancing (1), peek-a-boo (2)

5 kiss (1), “oh-my” (1), so big (3)

4 dancing/ waves arms (4)

3 clap (1), wave (2)

3 hop in chair (1), peek-a-boo (2)

2 claps (1), reaches (1),

1 shake head no (1)

1 so big (1)

Page 24: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Levels of Play Development

Level 0 = No object playExploratory = the way infant examines the environment in order to gain information from objects or toys (e.g., mouthing, banging, shaking, poking): Level I (indiscriminate actions), Level 2 (simple manipulations of single objects)Relational = two or more objects used in combination with one another, without regard to attributes or functions of objects (e.g., objects pushed, stacked, nested, piled): Level 3 (taking objects apart), Level 4 (general combinations)

Page 25: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Levels of Play Development

Functional = influenced by social or cultural properties of objects (e.g., pretend actions, spoon to doll’s mouth): Level 5 (directed toward object), Level 6 (toward self), Level 7 (toward doll), Level 8 (toward other person)Symbolic = items, attributes not actually present, or substitution of objects: Level 9 (object substitution), Level 10 (agent play), Level 11 (imaginary play)

(Baranek, Barnett, Adams, Wolcott, Watson, & Crais, 2005; Belsky & Most, 1981; Casby, 1991, Knox, 1997; Libby, Powell, Messer, & Jordan, 1998; Lifter, Sulzer-Azaroff, Anderson, & Cowdery, 1993)

Page 26: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Age Ranges of Play Levels Exploratory• Level 1 (indiscriminate actions) 2 - 10 months• Level 2 (simple manipulations) 2 - 10 monthsRelational• Level 3 (Takes objects apart) 10 - 18 months• Level 4 (General combinations) 10 - 18 monthsFunctional• Level 5 (object directed) 12 –18 months

Page 27: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Age Ranges of Play Levels

Functional• Level 6 (self directed) 12 – 18 months • Level 7 (doll directed) 12 - 18 months• Level 8 (other directed) 12 - 18 months Symbolic• Level 9 (object substitution) 18 – 30 months• Level 10 (agent play) 18 – 30 months• Level 11 (imaginary play) 18 – 30 months

Page 28: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Concurrent Language/Play Associations

13 - 20 months• First words appear along with more

consistent communicative gestures and single play schemes (e.g., child feeds self with spoon)

20 - 24 months • Word combinations appear along with

single play schemes combined (e.g., child feeds self with spoon, then drinks from cup).

• (Kennedy, Sheridan, Radlinski, & Beeghly, 1991)

Page 29: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Predictive Language/Play Associations

• Early skill with communicative gestures predicts later language levels (Mundy & Gomes, 1998; Thal, Bates, Goodman, & Jahn-Samilo, 1997)

• Early functional object play has been associated with later language ability (Lyytinen et al., 1999; Ungerer & Sigman, 1984)

• Level of symbolic play exhibited is predictive of later language skills (Lyytinen, Laakso, Poikkeus, Rita, 1999; Lyytinen, Poikkeus, Laakso, Eklund, & Lyytinen, 2001).

Page 30: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Longitudinal Relations between Play and

Gesture Behaviors in Infants with Autism

(Watson, Crais, Baranek, Roy, & Dykstra, 2004)

Examined predictive relations within and across the domains of play and gesture from 9-12 to 15-18 months

Page 31: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Subjects(Watson, Crais, Baranek, Roy, &

Dykstra, 2004)

• 27 children in three groups– Autism spectrum disorder (n = 15);

DSM-IV criteria, verified by CARS scores, and for 10 of 15 by ADI-R

– DD (n =4); nonspecific, mixed diagnoses

– Typical (n = 8)

Page 32: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

T1 to T2 Gesture Use (Watson et al. 2004)

Figure 1: Mean Frequency of Gestures for Total Sample (p=.08)

0

1

2

3

4

5

Time 1 Time 2

Ges T1

No GesT1

Page 33: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

T1 to T2 Gesture Use (Watson et al., 2004)

Figure 2: Mean Frequency of Gestures for ASD Sample

0

1

2

3

4

Time 1 Time 2

Ges T1

No GesT1

Page 34: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

T1 to T2 Higher Level Play (Relational Play+)

(Watson et al., 2004)

Figure 3: Mean Second in Higher Level Play for Total Sample

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

Time 1 Time 2

Hi playT1

Lo playT1

Page 35: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

T1 to T2 Higher Level Play

(Relational Play+) (Watson et al., 2004)

Figure 4: Mean Seconds in Higher Level Play for ASD Sample

0

5

10

15

20

Time 1 Time 2

Hi PlayT1

Lo PlayT1

Page 36: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Clinical Implications• Preliminary guidelines for clinicians seeking

developmental models for both the range of expected ages of emergence of targeted gestures and play behaviors and their hierarchy in typically developing children.

• Clinicians can assess the depth and breadth of gestures and play behaviors used by children demonstrating communication delays

• Hierarchy of gesture and play development can be used in determining potential developmental targets for intervention.

Page 37: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Red Flags Approach: Social Development • Be concerned if the child is not:

By:• Responding to familiar adults with a social smile 3 months• “Talking” back by vocalizing to familiar adults who talk to child 8 months• Attentive to social games played by familiar adults (e.g., Peek-a-Boo)

8 months• Participating in social games (e.g., hands up for “Pat-a-Cake”) 12 months• Showing and/or giving objects to familiar adults 15 months• Pointing to objects to indicate interest in them 18 months• Seeking adult interaction to play with toys/look at books 18 months• Pointing either spontaneously or by request to pictures in books 24 months•  • *** General Social Concerns = inattentiveness to people, lack of eye contact or shared mutual

gaze with familiar adults by 12 months; preferring to play alone at 18 months or older; social play is limited to “chase” or “tickle” games at 24 months.

Page 38: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Intentionality

Be concerned if the child is not:By:

Showing any type of intentional behavior (e.g. requests, protests) 10 months

Communicating for a variety of reasons (e.g., protesting, requesting,

seeking social interaction, commenting) 18 months

Using a variety of means (e.g., gestures, vocalizations, eye gaze) 18 months

 

*** General Intentionality Concerns = children who primarily regulate others behavior (e.g., putting someone’s hand on toy to operate it, leading adult to door to open it), but do not display more social forms of communicating (e.g., giving book to another to read, pointing to objects of interest, drawing attention to self for social reasons).

Page 39: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Play Skills

Be concerned if the child is not:By:

Mouthing, banging, shaking, and/or manipulating objects 8 monthsThrowing, dropping toys especially for others to get 12 months Participating in social games (e.g., looks for Mom during “Peek-a-Boo”). 12 monthsGiving or showing toys to adults 15 monthsPushing, pulling, turning on, putting in, and taking out objects 18 monthsShowing knowledge of how to use toys functionally (e.g., push toy car) 18 monthsStacking cups or rings on a toy stand (not necessarily correct) 24 monthsPerforming some pretend play behaviors (e.g., drinking from empty cup) 24 monthsCombining play acts (e.g., rocks baby and puts down for nap) 30 monthsPlaying with familiar children some of the time when in close proximity 36 monthsTaking turns in constructive or pretend play with familiar children 48 months

*** General Play Concerns = children who primarily perform play behaviors representative of younger children; have limited play behaviors (e.g., play with only one type of toy, play very briefly with toys); seem averse to playing with others (including caregivers); play alone for longer periods of time than would be expected at their developmental age; have stereotypic play behaviors (e.g., repeatedly open and close drawers, line up their toys and become upset if others change the order); or display unusual play behaviors (e.g., rub plastic stacking rings over their hands or face, lick and smell toys).

Page 40: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Comprehension Skills

Be concerned if the child is not:By:

Looking at objects looked at by others 12 months

Acting on objects that are noticed 12 months

Imitating ongoing actions 12 months

Responding to own name 15 months

Attending to an object mentioned 15 months

Doing what is usually done in a situation (e.g., child puts on coat

when others do) 18 months

Using conventional behaviors (e.g., combing hair with comb) 18 months

Acting on objects as the agent (e.g., child brushes own teeth

when asked to “Brush the baby’s teeth”) 24 months

Responding to many object names 24 months

Retrieving a familiar object out of sight 24 months

Page 41: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Sound Production

Be concerned if the child is not:By:

Producing cooing and gooing sounds 6 months

Babbling in repeated sequences of sounds (e.g., baba, gaga) 11 months

Producing 3 different consonant sounds (e.g., b, p, m, n, d, k, t, g, w) 18 months

Imitating any non-speech sounds (e.g., truck sound, animal sounds) 18 months

Using sound sequences that sound like talking 24 months

Producing (VC) syllables (e.g., up), (CVC) syllables with a single

consonant (e.g., cake), and some vocalizations or words

with two or more different consonants (e.g., pat, tummy) 24 months

Producing 6 different consonants 24 months

Producing initial consonants in most words (says “at” for pat, “ot” for boat) 36 months

Producing 10 different consonants 36 months

Producing any final sounds (“bo” for “boat”, “e” for “eat”) 36 months

Page 42: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Word Productions and Word Combinations

Be concerned if the child is not:By:

Producing any words or word approximations 18 months

Producing 50+ words or word approximations 28 months

Producing 100+ words 30 months

Combining words 28 months

 

E. Crais. (2001). Identifying communication and related developmental disabilities in young children. In J. Roush (Ed.), Screening for hearing loss and otitis media in children. San Diego, CA: Singular

Page 43: Elizabeth Crais The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill TelAbility/WATCH Project January 11, 2008 USING THE BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCE TO IDENTIFY

Questions?