Loading search results
Sponsor study identifier
observational
54
0 countries
N/A
Study Start
August 2015
Date type not reportedThis date has not been verified as actual or estimated.
Primary Completion
October 2015
Actual (reported)Study Completion
October 2015
Actual (reported)Purpose: To assess age and gender effect in the language error type (semantics, syntax and pragmatics)of developmental delay preschool aged children, a standardize tool "Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin" was adopted for evaluation. Methods: This is a retrospective chart study enrolled 55 children aged 3, 4 and 5 in department of rehabilitation in Taipei Medical University Hospital from 2011 Jan to 2014 Dec whose average PLS-C score was at least 1.5 SD below normal. Those normal or PLS-C score was less than 1.5SD below normal were excluded. We recorded correct percentage in pragmatics, syntax, and semantics in different age group separately in auditory comprehension, language expression as well as overall performance. All wrong questions answered in PLS-C were recorded. We used SAS 9.4 (Anova, t-test) to analyze the results in age differences, gender differences, and language components differences Results: In overall performance, expression, and comprehension, there was no difference between boy and girl by t-test in all ages. By one-way Anova Bonferroni t test, age 5 was better than age 4 and age 3 significantly in pragmatics, syntax and semantics (p\<0.005). We further separated into groups of 5YR boy, 5YR girl, 4YR boy, 4YR girl, and 3YR boy. In overall performance, by Duncan's multiple analysis, only 5 YR boy had significant better performance than 4 YR girl and 3 YR boy in pragmatics. In age 5, boys had better performance in pragmatics than girls (p\<0.05). In age 4, no differences are showed between boy and girl. In comprehension, in age 5, boys have better performance in pragmatics than girls(p\<0.05). In expression, there was no difference between boys and girls. Pragmatics was better than syntax (p=0.0202\<o.o5) in age 5. Conclusion: We found age had more effect than gender in language delay children. Age 5 boys had better performance in pragmatics conflicted with some previous studies and may need more exploration in the future. Key words: Development Delay, Preschool aged children, Language Development Delay, Semantics, Syntax, Pragmatics, Language error type
Registry-reported information. Elapsed time and enrollment totals alone do not measure study progress or recruitment pace.
October 2015
Actual (reported)Click on a node to explore related trials.
Some registry-reported names shown below are not yet linked in this graph.
Dates and qualifiers reported by the registry. Estimated dates do not confirm that a milestone has occurred.
August 2015
Date type not reportedThis date has not been verified as actual or estimated.
October 2015
Actual (reported)October 2015
Actual (reported)January 21, 2016
Actual (reported)January 26, 2016
Actual (reported)What's the difference of language error types between boy and girl.
In overall performance, expression, and comprehension, there was no difference between boy and girl by t-test in all ages.
2011 Jan to 2014 Dec
To assess age and gender effect in the language error type (semantics, syntax and pragmatics)of developmental delay preschool aged children, a standardize tool "Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin" was adopted for evaluation.
Registry-reported names are shown in full. Names without a link have not yet been matched to a Syfrah profile.
This is a retrospective chart study enrolled 55 children aged 3, 4 and 5 in department of rehabilitation in Taipei Medical University Hospital from 2011 Jan to 2014 Dec whose average PLS-C score was at least 1.5 SD below normal. Those normal or PLS-C score was less than 1.5SD below normal were excluded.
54 participants (actual enrollment reported by the registry).
First Submitted
January 21, 2016
First Posted
January 26, 2016
Study Start
August 2015
Date type not reportedThis date has not been verified as actual or estimated.
Contact the study team to confirm eligibility.
Primary Completion
October 2015
Actual (reported)Study Completion
October 2015
Actual (reported)Last Updated
January 26, 2016
Record last verified: 2016-01
Download the complete ClinicalTrials.gov record imported by Syfrah, including fields not shown in this page. The registry may contain a newer revision.
Source: ClinicalTrials.gov.
JSON downloads include source attribution and retrieval details alongside the unchanged original record or the separately normalized values.
Source retrieved: