Autism & Developmental

Differences on morphological and phonological processing between typically developing children and children with Down syndrome.

Lázaro et al. (2013) · Research in developmental disabilities 2013
★ The Verdict

Kids with Down syndrome need separate, memory-light grammar lessons because phonology practice alone will not close the morphological gap.

✓ Read this if BCBAs who assess or teach language to school-age children with Down syndrome.
✗ Skip if Practitioners working only with autism or adults with ID.

01Research in Context

01

What this study did

Lázaro et al. (2013) compared kids with Down syndrome to typically developing peers on two language games. One game asked them to define made-up words. The other asked them to make plurals.

The team wanted to see if children with Down syndrome use word parts the same way other kids do.

02

What they found

Kids with Down syndrome scored well below their peers on both tasks. They could figure out meanings only when the task gave lots of hints. They struggled to add plural endings on their own.

The gap shows that grammar rules are harder for them, not just vocabulary.

03

How this fits with other research

Leaf et al. (2012) pooled earlier reading studies and found the same thing: children with Down syndrome have weak phonological awareness. Miguel’s 2013 morphological gap lines up with that bigger picture.

Madden et al. (2003) showed you can teach phonological skills directly, but the gains stay narrow. Miguel’s results say the same: even after direct teaching, kids still fall behind on grammar tasks that need working memory.

Van Hanegem et al. (2014) gave a short phonological warm-up and saw a tiny reading boost. Miguel found no such boost for grammar. The difference is the task: quick sound hints help reading, but grammar still lags.

04

Why it matters

When you test language, pick low-memory tasks for kids with Down syndrome. Use extra cues and allow gestures. Target grammar rules in small steps and review often. Do not wait for phonology training to fix morphology—it will not spill over.

Free CEUs

Want CEUs on This Topic?

The ABA Clubhouse has 60+ free CEUs — live every Wednesday. Ethics, supervision & clinical topics.

Join Free →
→ Action — try this Monday

Swap one plural worksheet for a supported drill: show picture pairs, say the singular, then prompt the plural together and fade prompts across five quick trials.

02At a glance

Intervention
not applicable
Design
quasi experimental
Population
down syndrome, neurotypical
Finding
negative

03Original abstract

It is widely acknowledged that people with Down syndrome (Ds) have less highly developed morphosyntactic abilities than typically developing (TD) children. However, little is known about the morphological processing of this population. In this paper we carry out two experiments in which the morphological Base Frequency (BF) effect is explored in both groups. The aim of the experiments is to carry out an in-depth exploration of morphological processing in children with Ds and TD children. In the first experiment children performed a definition task; in the second children had to provide a plural form for singular words. The results show a significant BF effect in only the first experiment. In the second experiment this morphological variable does not reach significance, but the variable we called Ending phoneme (a phonological variable that refers to the last phoneme of the bases prior to the addition of plural morphemes) does. The results also show that children with Ds score significantly below the two control groups in both experiments, with no significant differences between control groups. We go on to discuss morphological processing in children with and without Ds, the role of the two tasks carried out (paying special attention to the role played by working memory), and the possible relationship between our results and morphosyntactic deficits described in the literature.

Research in developmental disabilities, 2013 · doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2013.03.027