A Comparison of the Storage-Only Deficit and Joint Mechanism Deficit Hypotheses of the Verbal Working Memory Storage Capacity Limitation of Children with Developmental Language Disorder

Autor/inn/en	Montgomery, James W.; Gillam, Ronald B.; Evans, Julia L.; Schwartz, Sarah; Fargo, Jamison D.
Titel	A Comparison of the Storage-Only Deficit and Joint Mechanism Deficit Hypotheses of the Verbal Working Memory Storage Capacity Limitation of Children with Developmental Language Disorder
Quelle	In: Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 62 (2019) 10, S.3808-3825 (28 Seiten) PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1092-4388
Schlagwörter	Verbal Communication; Short Term Memory; Developmental Disabilities; Language Impairments; Attention; Long Term Memory; Children; Preadolescents; Correlation + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Kurzzeitgedächtnis; Entwicklungsstörung; Speech disorder; Speech disorders; Speech disabilities; Speech disability; Speech handicap; Speech handicaps; Speech impairment; Speech impairments; Language handicaps; Sprachbehinderung; Aufmerksamkeit; Langzeitgedächtnis; Child; Kind; Kinder; Pre-adolescence; Präadoleszenz; Korrelation
Abstract	Purpose: The storage-only deficit and joint mechanism deficit hypotheses are 2 possible explanations of the verbal working memory (vWM) storage capacity limitation of school-age children with developmental language disorder (DLD). We assessed the merits of each hypothesis in a large group of children with DLD and a group of same-age typically developing (TD) children. Method: Participants were 117 children with DLD and 117 propensity-matched TD children 7--11 years of age. Children completed tasks indexing vWM capacity, verbal short-term storage, sustained attention, attention switching, and lexical long-term memory (LTM). Results: For the DLD group, all of the mechanisms jointly explained 26.5% of total variance. Storage accounted for the greatest portion (13.7%), followed by controlled attention (primarily sustained attention; 6.5%) and then lexical LTM (5.6%). For the TD group, all 3 mechanisms together explained 43.9% of total variance. Storage accounted for the most variance (19.6%), followed by lexical LTM (16.0%), sustained attention (5.4%), and attention switching (3.0%). There was a significant LTM × Group interaction, in which stronger LTM scores were associated with significantly higher vWM capacity scores for the TD group as compared to the DLD group. Conclusions: Results support a joint mechanism deficit account of the vWM capacity limitation of children with DLD. Results provide substantively new insights into the underlying factors of the vWM capacity limitation in DLD. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. 2200 Research Blvd #250, Rockville, MD 20850. Tel: 301-296-5700; Fax: 301-296-8580; e-mail: slhr@asha.org; Web site: http://jslhr.pubs.asha.org
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2020/1/01