The use of both expressive and receptive vocabulary tests allowed us to obtain a measure of lexical knowledge that was comparable to the composite measure of lexical knowledge used by Tomblin et al. (2007). Expressive grammatical abilities were assessed with the Grammar subscale from
the Action Picture Test (Renfrew, 1988), and receptive grammatical abilities with the Test for Reception of Grammar 2nd Edition (TROG-2, Bishop, 2003). In the Action Picture Test, children are shown pictures, and are asked a question about each one. Children’s responses are recorded and scored with respect to the use of grammar. There are a total of 10 pictures; the highest possible raw score is 36. The TROG-2 http://www.selleckchem.com/products/Everolimus(RAD001).html consists of 80 sentences evenly divided into 20 blocks. Children are presented with a sentence and asked to point to the matching picture from four possible options. As children progress through each block, increasingly more complicated syntactic structures are presented. check details A child does not pass a block if s/he failed at least one item. Testing is discontinued if the child fails five consecutive
blocks. The data used in the analyses were the total number of blocks passed. As with lexical knowledge, the use of both expressive and receptive measures of grammatical knowledge allowed for our measure to be comparable to the one used by Tomblin et al. (2007). The test battery was administered to participants over five sessions, all of which took place within a 3-month period. Only one memory task was presented per session. The order of presentation of tasks Edoxaban was randomised across participants.
Ethical approval for the study was obtained from The University of Manchester, and informed written consent was gained from the children’s parents or legal guardians. Summary statistics are presented in Table 2. The SLI group performed significantly worse than the TD group on all four lexical and grammatical measures. All comparisons yielded large effect sizes. Potential group differences in working memory were examined on the subtests of the WMTB-C. Between-subjects MANOVAs (Table 3, Covariates: None) revealed a significant multivariate group effect for the working memory subtests designed to probe the central executive (p < .001), and for those assessing the phonological loop (p < .001), both of which showed large effect sizes (partial η2 ≥ .138, Cohen, 1988). In contrast, the multivariate group effect for the subtests probing the visuo-spatial sketchpad was not significant (p = .179), and yielded a small (i.e., partial η2 < .059) effect size. Univariate post-hoc tests were then performed to examine potential group differences on each working memory subtest ( Table 4, under the column “No covariates”). For all univariate post-hoc analyses (here and elsewhere), alpha was adjusted using Holm’s Procedure to control for multiple comparisons ( Aicken and Gensler, 1996 and Holm, 1979).