Daily Mail article that's annoyed me

[oodlesofdoodles]

This came through in mumsnet round up email: www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2011464/Why-dont-need-worried-toddler-struggles-right-words.html

It cites an Australian study that says don't worry if your child seems behind at two he'll have caught up by five.

This is the sort of rubbish that we were fobbed off with. My DS is now 4.5 and a long, long way behind his peers. The DM publishing this sort of thing just serves the interests of health professionals who can't be bothered follow up on child development (IMO).

Anyway the one comment agreeing with this article has loads of thumbs up - please boost the ratings for the two anti comments.

[TotalChaos]

Thanks for the link. It's a v frustrating article. And v circular reasoning. That Late Talkers do fine. But noone ever thought Late Talkers wouldn't do fine - as Late Talkers are those who seem a bit slow with language development but are fine by 3 without intervention. And overlooks the difficulties in ascertaining whether a child is a Late Talker or has a language or other developmental delay.

[willowthecat]

very frustrating rubbish and so common unfortunately - 'Don't worry about your normal child being a 'late talker' in the normal range etc' I think parents of typically developingl children enjoy these articles as it makes them feel their children are ahead of the game somehow and it is all due to their excellent parenting.

[oodlesofdoodles]

Total conjecture here, but maybe Australia is better at picking up children with genuine developmental delays earlier (following Total's comment). So this study could just be about 'late talkers', unlike in the UK where late talking and moderate language delays can all get lumped in together.

[Al1son]

I was told by a SALT that they prefer to see all toddlers with slightly delayed speech because, although the vast majority will catch up without intervention and be fine, those who have a disorder need intervention as early as possible and it means that they get the help they need.

The fact that most will be ok is irrelevant. It's important to catch the ones who need help as early as possible.

[dolfrog]

Much of this is about the Age of Maturation which is 7 - 8 years old. All children develop different cognitive skills at different ages and at different rates, and it is not until the age of 7 - 8 years old that these natural development processes have run their course that children stop growing out of these types of problems and the problems can be considered as a clinically diagnosable disorder or disability. Another idea is that most children who do have an some for of cognitive disorder, will begin to develop and use their own alternative compensating skills and abilities to work around their deficits.
If there is a genetic link or family history of a specific deficit / disorder which tends to be the case for most of these types of problems then the issues may be considered for an earlier diagnosis.
The age of maturation is the reason research recommends that formal education begins at 7 years of age, as happens in the more educationally advanced countries.

[dolfrog]

There is also this reaction in the USA to the Australian research
Parents: Don't Hope Your Child Will Just Outgrow An Early Language Problem
All of our DC had a speech delay and my mother told me about mine, and we now know this was due to Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) which can not be clinically diagnosed until after 7 years old, but our your two sons were always considered to have APD as the cause of their issues due to the family history of APD, and it is that understanding of the nature of the problems at providing the support and understanding which has helped DS3 which both DS1 and DS2 missed because we did not even know APD existed when they needed the understanding and support when they were much younger.
DS3 just got his first Secondary school report to day and thanks to the Great Ormond Street Hospital ( GOSH) Multi-Discipline Assessment his new school have been able to put in the support he needs and he has made better progress than we could have ever expected. Just wish we could have done the same for DS1 and DS2 too late now.

[TotalChaos]

thanks for linking that follow-up article dolfrog, it's v informative, and confirms my suspicions that they didn't include any children with social communication problems.

[TotalChaos]

yeees I can see why you might be thinking vested interest, but as someone who was bitten badly on the arse by the wait and see approach, I strongly feel that only a qualified SLT can make the call on whether it's appropriate to wait and see!

[dolfrog]

zzzzz

Not many are aware of this, but it is ASHA who have set the standards for qualification, and licence to practice for Speech and Lanaguage Pathologists in the USA.
Unlike here in the UK, in the USA Speech and Language Pathologists have a 3 year licence to practice, and have to demonstrate that they are aware of and understood all of the recent research regarding their work, before their licence to practice is renewed.
The fear of being sued for bad practice drives this, so they are continually defining and redefining best practice as the cutting edge of research opens new areas of understanding. ASHA is very much a research evidence based organisation, especially after some of the problems of the 1990s when some of the issues you mentioned came to light

[dolfrog]

have a look at
[[http://www.asha.org/certification/slp_standards.htm 2005 Standards and Implementation Procedures for the
Certificate of Clinical Competence in Speech-Language Pathology]]

[TheTimeTravellersWife]

That's interesting. So really it is like a process of CPD, (continuous professional development). I like that idea!