Comorbid motor deficits in a clinical sample of children with specific language impairment.
An SLI diagnosis is a red flag for motor and reading delays—screen all three domains at once.
01Research in Context
What this study did
The team looked at kids already diagnosed with specific language impairment (SLI).
They gave each child quick tests of motor skills and early reading.
Then they compared scores to two groups: kids matched for language level and kids with typical language.
What they found
The SLI group scored lower on both movement and literacy tasks.
Even when language level was the same, the SLI kids still lagged behind.
A clinic SLI label signals trouble in more places than just talking.
How this fits with other research
Westendorp et al. (2014) followed children with any learning disorder for four years.
They saw the same big motor gaps, proving the problem stays over time.
Andrés-Roqueta et al. (2016) adds another layer: kids with SLI also struggle with social thinking and are liked less by peers.
Together the papers show SLI is rarely "just language"—motor, reading, and social domains all need checking.
Why it matters
When a child lands on your caseload with an SLI diagnosis, plan a wider scan.
Add a short motor checklist and a quick literacy probe to your intake.
If gaps show up, loop in OT or reading specialists early instead of waiting.
One extra form now can save months of surprise delays later.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Tape a 30-second balance and letter-naming probe to your intake folder for every new SLI referral.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
The aim of the present study was to compare the motor function of a clinical sample of children with specific language impairment (SLI) to a language-matched comparison group that had not been referred for SLI assessment. A typical language comparison group with similar nonverbal IQ was also included. There were approximately 35 children in each group, aged 9- to 10-years-old, and the children completed a range of standardised language, motor and literacy measures. The results showed that the SLI group scored significantly lower than the language-matched and typical language comparison groups on all of the motor and literacy measures. We conclude that language factors alone are insufficient to explain the extensive comorbid motor and literacy deficits shown by the children with SLI in this study. We suggest that the clinical diagnosis of SLI may be influenced by the presence of additional developmental difficulties, which should be made explicit in assessment procedures, and that intervention strategies, which address the broad range of difficulties experienced by children with a clinical diagnosis of SLI, should be prioritised.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2013 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.05.015