Why do children with language impairment have difficulties with narrative macrostructure?
Check sustained attention before asking kids with language impairment to generate stories, and lean on comprehension tasks for younger ages.
01Research in Context
What this study did
Blom et al. (2016) compared how kids with language impairment tell and understand stories.
They looked at both story comprehension and story generation in the same children.
The team also tested whether attention skills explain why some kids struggle more than others.
What they found
Kids with language impairment understood stories better as they got older.
But they still had trouble making up their own stories, even when older.
Poor sustained attention predicted who kept having trouble generating stories.
How this fits with other research
Saravanaperumal et al. (2025) saw the same pattern in Tamil-speaking autistic preschoolers.
Even when vocabulary was matched, autistic kids told shorter, simpler stories.
Bouck et al. (2016) found deaf children using spoken English could grasp story gist yet stumbled on grammar details.
Together these studies show macrostructure (big-picture story sense) can look okay while microstructure (sentence details) stays weak across different diagnoses.
Why it matters
Before you ask a child to retell a story, quickly check sustained attention.
If attention flags, switch to comprehension questions first.
This small shift gives you cleaner data and less frustration during language assessments.
Want CEUs on This Topic?
The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.
Join Free →Open your next language sample with three picture-supported comprehension questions before any retell request.
02At a glance
03Original abstract
BACKGROUND: Research has produced conflicting findings about the effects of language impairment (LI) on narrative macrostructure outcomes. AIMS: The present study investigated if children with LI perform weaker than typically developing (TD) controls on narrative macrostructure in different tasks, whether this changes over time and if between-group differences stem from linguistic or cognitive factors. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: A group of monolingual Dutch children with LI (n=84) and a TD control group (n=45) were tested with a story comprehension and a story generation task. All children were five or six at wave 1 and six or seven at wave 2. Information was collected on vocabulary, grammar, verbal memory and sustained attention. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: At wave 1, the LI group performed weaker than the TD group in both tasks. At wave 2, the groups performed similarly on story comprehension. On story generation, the TD group still outperformed the LI group. Sustained attention mediated the relationship between group and story generation. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: Effects of LI on narrative macrostructure are moderated by age and task and may stem from sustained attention weaknesses. These findings have implications for using narrative tasks in educational and diagnostic settings and may direct future interventions.
Research in developmental disabilities, 2016 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2016.05.001