Outcomes of severe disorders of language acquisition.

Sprague et al. (1984) followed a small group of children who were once called 'aphasic.' The kids had severe trouble learning language. The team tracked them for years to see how their skills grew.

They looked at expressive language, receptive language, and IQ. They wanted to know which scores best predicted later school placement.

Language kept growing, but slowly. Talking improved faster than understanding. Performance IQ and receptive scores told us where the child would later be placed in school.

Even teens once labeled 'aphasic' were still making gains. The gap between speaking and understanding stayed wide.

Edgin et al. (2005) later saw the same slow climb in kids with severe ID. Age-equivalent scores inched up while standard scores fell. Both studies say: watch real-world skills, not just percentiles.

English et al. (1995) looked at adults with Down syndrome and found the opposite pattern: receptive language dropped with age while expressive held steady. The 1984 kids showed the reverse—expressive outran receptive. Same split, flipped direction. Method and diagnosis explain the difference.

Kalliontzi et al. (2022) adds a new piece: weak executive function may feed language delays. The 1984 paper never tested EF, but both warn us to look beyond surface scores when planning support.

Keep tracking both expressive and receptive scores. Use performance IQ and receptive level when you pick a classroom or set goals. Real gains can happen into adolescence, so don’t cap expectations too soon. Update the plan each year, and teach the team to watch age-equivalent progress, not just standard scores.