Next Article in Journal
Everyday Assistive Products Support Participation in Sport
Previous Article in Journal
Biological or Prosthetic Limb—Which Is More Advantageous for Running Performance? A Narrative Review
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Disabilities
Volume 5
Issue 1
10.3390/disabilities5010030
disabilities-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Developmental Language Disorder at Adolescence: Links Between Communication Skills and Self-Efficacy Ratings

by
Anabel Buteau-Poulin
1,
Nancy Gaudreau
2 and
Chantal Desmarais
1,3,*
1
School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Université Laval, 2325 Rue de l’Université, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
2
Faculty of Education, Université Laval, Québec, QC G1V 0A6, Canada
3
Centre Interdisciplinaire de Recherche en Réadaptation Intégration Sociale (CIRRIS), Québec, QC G1M 2S8, Canada
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Disabilities 2025, 5(1), 30; https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5010030
Submission received: 4 October 2024 / Revised: 26 February 2025 / Accepted: 5 March 2025 / Published: 14 March 2025
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) has a prevalence of 7%, making it one of the important yet little known neurodevelopmental disorders. Often identified in kindergarten, children with DLD have language learning difficulties severe enough to impact their schooling and socialization. During adolescence, there is a high risk of academic, vocational, and mental health difficulties. However, for adults with DLD, a positive perception of self-efficacy may act as a protective factor. This led us to explore how communications skills and self-efficacy are related in adolescents with DLD. The participants were 49 teenagers, aged 12 to 15, who have DLD. Communication was measured using the Children’s Communication Checklist, completed by the teenagers’ parents, while perception of self-efficacy was reported by the teenagers as well as by their parents using the Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. A significant correlation was found between communication and self-efficacy with three domains of communication being the most important in this association, i.e., coherence (r = 0.716, p < 0.001), initiation (r = 0.581, p < 0.001), and use of context (r = 0.649, p < 0.001). These results highlight the crucial role of social communication in the profile of teenagers living with DLD. They further suggest that it may be relevant to examine whether supporting language development may foster positive perception of self-efficacy in teenagers living with DLD.

1. Introduction

Developmental language disorder (DLD) is characterized by difficulty in acquiring language that is severe enough to result in functional impacts, namely in learning and socialization. It affects 7% of kindergarten children and has no known underlying medical or neurological condition [1]. It is typically identified around kindergarten and lasts throughout life. For instance, a recent study conducted with 16 to 26 years old patients who had been recently discharged from the public health system showed that 90% of them still had global communication skills (CS) below the norm. More precisely, 60% of them fitted the developmental language disorder (DLD) diagnostic criteria [2].
One important criterion of DLD is that the language difficulties are severe enough to result in functional impacts [3]. For adolescents with DLD, everyday CS are usually adequate to support simple conversations. However, they face important language and communication challenges when they are exposed to more complex contexts such as the school curriculum, employment opportunities, friendships, social participation, and emotional health [4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17].
For example, some teenagers need additional resources such as significant hours of tutoring to complete either regular high school, a technical degree, or a college degree [18]. Even with this additional help, many will not obtain their high school diploma because their oral and written communication difficulties are too significant [10,19]. Additionally, it is arduous for teenagers living with DLD to pass the theoretical exam to obtain a driving license. Similarly, accessing and maintaining a job is a challenge for teenagers with DLD. It is twice as difficult for teenagers living with DLD to be employed and to maintain a job, and there is less opportunity for advancement or promotion [6,10,19]. This can be attributable to the fact that many jobs require good communication skills (e.g., customer service, writing inventory) [20]. Finally, autonomy is a challenge and many young adults living with DLD have difficulty becoming independent from their parents [5,8,19,21,22,23].
Turning to social participation and quality of life, teenagers living with DLD are also at a disadvantage when compared to peers. One explanation for this observation is that the receptive and expressive language difficulties that characterize DLD impact conversations and thus diminish the quantity and the quality of social interactions [6,18,24,25,26,27]. Emotional well-being is another area that has been explored in teenagers with DLD. Research has shown that having good language skills contributes positively to the recognition of emotions, both those of others as well as our own, and that this is associated with self-regulation [9,28,29]. This may be related to the fact that teenagers living with DLD are more emotionally vulnerable, and thus more susceptible to being bullied, which negatively affects their well-being [14,15]. The risk of experiencing anxiety, depression, or psychiatric disorder is also twice as high as in the general population [6,7,30]. Recently, researchers also proposed that, in adults with DLD, communication difficulties affect the capacity to target reachable life goals as well as to plan and organize actions in order to achieve them [31].
This conclusion led us to further examine self-efficacy in adolescents living with DLD. For their adult participants, these authors highlighted self-efficacy as an important variable in the perception of well-being. Self-efficacy is the feeling that one can face challenges autonomously and thrive [32]. Some authors suggested that a strong perception of self-efficacy can act as a protective factor against depression throughout the developmental trajectory [33]. Furthermore, GSER significantly influences several intrapersonal factors like self-esteem, motivation, optimism and emotion regulation, which all contribute to quality of life [34]. GSER also had been identified as a key asset to succeed in the transition from adolescence to adulthood as well as a key factor to predict global life satisfaction [35,36]. Considering that a better understanding of the links between communication skills and self-efficacy may shed light on the developmental trajectory of adolescents with DLD, the aim of this study was to examine these links.
Considering the importance of self-efficacy ratings in studies of quality of life, it is relevant to examine how it may be related to communication skills in adolescents living with DLD. Hence, the aim of the current study was to examine the links between communication skills and generalized self-efficacy ratings of teenagers living with DLD. To answer the research question, the objectives pursued were to examine the language and communication skills and the self-efficacy ratings of adolescents with DLD to subsequently explore the correlations between the two.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Participants

Recruitment was non-probabilistic. The research team contacted six high schools of the province of Quebec that offer special education classes designed for adolescents with language and learning disabilities, including DLD. After the school agreed to participate, an invitation as well as the information and consent form were sent home via the adolescents. Families who agreed to take part in the study signed the consent form and returned it to the school.
Inclusion criteria for the teenagers were to (i) be aged between 12 and 15 years and (ii) have received a diagnosis of DLD consistent with the Catalise consensus [3].

2.2. Variables

Dependent variables were the communication skills (CS) as well as the generalized self-efficacy ratings (GSER) of the participants. Several independent variables were also documented, such as age, gender, family history of language difficulty, and presence or absence of co-occurring conditions.

2.3. Measuring Instruments

A socio-demographic questionnaire was completed by the parents. It contained two sections: (1) general information such as age and gender of the teenager as well as some questions about family history; and (2) information about health services and language and communication skills development.
To measure CS, the Children’s Communication Checklist-2 (CCC-2) was completed by the parents of the participating teenagers. This written questionnaire was created by Dorothy Bishop to assess language and communication skills of children and teenagers aged 4 to 16 [37]. The global aim of the CCC-2 is to identify language and communication disorders, more specifically those in which the main issue concerns pragmatic aspects. The instrument is validated and standardized in its original English version. It was translated into Quebec French, and the version is considered conceptually, culturally, and linguistically equivalent [38]. This tool was chosen because it was the most relevant one available [37,39]. The psychometric qualities of the CCC-2 have been confirmed in studies with teenagers living with or without communication issues [37,40]. The CCC-2 is composed of 70 items divided into 10 subscales of seven items each. The subscales measure different aspects of communication: A. speech, B. syntax, C. semantics, D. coherence, E. initiation, F. stereotyped language, G. context, H. non-verbal communication, I. social relations, J. interests. The rating system is designed for a parent or any person who knows the child well. Using a Likert scale, the rater indicates the frequency to which the child demonstrates a specific communication skill. The Likert scale goes from 0 = never to 3 = always. Using the software provided by the publisher of the CCC-2, raw general scores (total/210) and scores for each subscale (total/21 for each) were converted to percentile ranks (total/100), allowing us to use normative data in the statistical analyses. These were calculated by the software supplied with the CCC-2. The SIDC score usually produced with this tool was not used for this study.
To measure the GSER, the French version of the written questionnaire « General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSES) » was used [41]. The translated version showed good internal consistency (α Cronbach > 0.85) and reliability (r = 0.79) with the original one [42]. The aim of this tool is to assess the capacity of teenagers over 12 years to self-evaluate their ability to complete everyday tasks, even when facing obstacles or stressful events. The tool contains ten questions answered via a Likert scale going from 1 = never to 4 = always. The research team chose to also ask the parents to complete this scale because teenagers living with DLD have communication difficulties (e.g., deficits in oral or written comprehension) that could limit their capacity to adequately complete it. Self-evaluation as well as planning for the future, which are necessary to answer the questionnaire, are also difficult for those teenagers [43,44,45,46]. Moreover, it is known that the parent’s thoughts and attitude towards their children can have an impact on the evaluation [32]. There are therefore two data sources for this assessment: one from the teenagers (GSERT) and one from their parents (GSERP). In the version aimed at the teenagers, the items use 1st person wording. In the parents’ case, the research team changed it to « My kid … ». Only raw scores are available for this tool because it has not been normed.

2.4. Data Collection

Data were collected in the fall of 2019 and in the fall of 2020. The COVID-19 pandemic happened between the two data collection points. We therefore compared the results of participants recruited in the fall of 2019 to those of the participants of the fall of 2020 and found no difference.
Upon receiving the consent form, the sociodemographic questionnaire, the CCC-2, and the GSES were mailed to the parents. They were asked to return the completed questionnaires using the postage-paid return envelope.
For the teenagers, the GSES was completed either in person (fall 2019) or in an online meeting (fall 2020, procedure adapted for COVID-19) with a member of the research team. The approximate duration is 10 min. As compensation, the participants received 10$.

2.5. Data Entry

For the socio-demographic and the GSES questionnaires, responses and scores were compiled by hand in a SPSS database 21.0. For the CCC-2, the normative scores generated by the software were added to the same SPSS database.

2.6. Data Analysis

This exploratory study used descriptive-correlational analysis. Statistics were performed using the 28th version of IBM SPSS Statistics. Frequencies and means were calculated to characterize the sample. Student’s t-tests and Spearman’s correlations were subsequently carried out. Two statisticians supported the first author, a master’s student, in planning and carrying out the data analysis.

3. Results

3.1. Sample Description

There were 49 teenagers living with DLD included in the study. Table 1 presents the characteristics of the sample coming from six different high schools in the province of Quebec.
Table 1 shows that there was a higher proportion of boys in the cohort of this study. The two boys for one girl ratio is consistent with what is usually found in similar studies [47,48]. French was reported as the first language of almost all participants and the majority of the teenagers lived with both parents. The most important co-occurrence was attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD, n = 30/49). Others were apraxia of speech, auditory treatment disorder, dyslexia and dysorthography, hypervigilance, and Tourette’s syndrome.

3.2. Study Data

3.2.1. Communication Skills

Table 2 shows that 51% of participants presented general CS distinctly under the norm. More specifically, difficulties were present for approximately half of the teenagers in the subscales of semantics (57%), scripted language (53%), and coherence (51%). On the other hand, there were fewer participants having difficulties in the subscales of interests (24%), social relations (27%), and initiation (27%).

3.2.2. Generalized Self-Efficacy

Table 3 shows that the parents perceived the generalized self-efficacy of their teenagers about a point lower than the teenagers themselves (28.69 versus 29.63). Even if these scores appear similar, a t-test showed that there was a significant difference between them (t = 43.19; df: 48; p < 0.001).

3.2.3. Correlations

Table 4 shows that there was a fair to moderate correlation between GSERP and CS as well as between GSERT and CS. It also shows that GSERT was fairly to moderately correlated with GSERP. Considering these results, we opted to use the GSERP in the next step of the analysis.
Table 5 shows that the CS subscales of coherence (r = 0.716), use of context (r = 0.649), and initiation (r = 0.581) were fairly to moderately correlated to GSERP. On the other hand, semantic (r = 0.442), syntax (r = 0.390), and speech (r = 0.254) were weakly correlated to GSERP.

4. Discussion

This study aimed to explore the association between communication skills and perception of self-efficacy in teenagers living with DLD. First, we described the general communication skills of these teenagers. In our sample, half of the 49 participants obtained a general communication score under the 10th percentile, a threshold that has been used for confirming the presence of a DLD [49]. Beyond this general score, it is particularly noteworthy that the weakest abilities were found in the area of pragmatics, or social communication, which is a domain of language linked to reduced social participation [30]. More specifically, the teenagers in our study obtained particularly low scores with regard to coherence and use of context, two elements of communication that contribute to fluid conversations, telling a story, or giving explanations. This is of interest because, as children become adolescents, expectations of mastery of language abilities increase. For example, adolescents are expected to participate in more complex conversations often requiring the ability to make inferences to understand humor or shared knowledge within a group. Another expected skill for that age group is to be able to adjust the level of language used to the communication partner, e.g., selecting different vocabulary or tone of voice when talking to a friend versus when talking to a teacher. If a teenager struggles to maintain coherence and use context, the tasks described above will likely be challenging. Moreover, social resources of an individual have been identified as a key asset in the transition from adolescence to adulthood. Our results confirm that teenagers with DLD need support to enhance communication skills that are required for socialization [43].
Second, we measured the perception of self-efficacy in our sample of teenagers living with DLD. Our results, indicating that their perception of self-efficacy is low, are in line with those of similar studies [50,51,52]. The contribution from our study is that our participants presented language-specific difficulties, whereas previous studies had reported on students with general learning disability. These results thus add to previous reports that young adults with DLD who have a positive perception of self-efficacy also obtain better outcomes in areas of social participation [31].
With regard to self-efficacy, another element worth discussing is the difference in perspectives between the student and their parent. Although small, the difference indicated that parents perceived lower self-efficacy in their child than the teenagers reported for themselves. This gap was also observed by other research teams similar constructs, e.g., autonomy and well-being. These variations appear stronger in the DLD population in comparison to their peers without DLD [53,54,55]. Some suggested that the social competency levels of the participants as well as the proximity between the teenagers and their parents can influence the closeness of the scores. Because teenagers living with DLD often face important challenges that affect the child–parent relationship, it may be more likely for them to present different scores [56,57]. Another hypothesis may be that teenagers living with DLD have lower expectations and may be satisfied with lower achievements, attitudes that their parents may not share [58].
Turning to the main goal of this study, we explore the link between communication abilities and perception of self-efficacy. The analysis showed a moderate but significant correlation between general communication abilities and the parents’ perception of self-efficacy in their child. However, looking at the perception of the teenagers themselves, no correlation was found between the global communication score and self-efficacy scores. This had previously been reported in a study of young adults living with language impairment [31]. Our findings add support to the notion that there is a link between the presence of a language disorder and perception of self-efficacy. Moreover, they suggest that this link between lower perception of self-efficacy and weaker communication abilities is already measurable during adolescence. In sum, our results support the hypothesis that weak perception of self-efficacy is associated with low language abilities. When added to existing reports, they also point to the importance of considering perception of self-efficacy in individuals with DLD as early as adolescence.
Additionally, a closer examination of our results shows that perception of self-efficacy reported by parents is more strongly associated with the social aspects of communication, i.e., coherence, use of context, and initiation. These results line up with a study of a general population of adolescents beginning high school, where the research team found that communication and interpersonal skills were predictors of social self-efficacy [59].
Summarizing all our results, it appears that coherence in communication drives the link between general communication abilities and the parental reports of self-efficacy observed in their children. The specific set of communication skills that contribute to coherence, such as staying on topic and noticing when an incomprehension arises during a conversation are therefore a central element in the profile of the teenagers in our study. From a clinical perspective, our results suggest that it may be particularly relevant to address skills contributing to coherence in communication when working with teenagers with DLD.

4.1. Future Perspectives

From a research perspective, future studies could aim to compare perception of self-efficacy in distinct groups, e.g., adolescents who perform well with regard to coherence in communication versus those who have weak scores in that area. Considering that coherence was the aspect of communication most closely linked to self-efficacy ratings, it may be relevant to examine the variables that contribute to coherence and how they are linked to perception of self-efficacy. It may also be of interest to explore how skills contributing to coherence relate to other thematically linked constructs such as sense of competence or well-being. If a significant difference in coherence skills appeared based on self-efficacy, it would reinforce the notion that targeting coherence is a relevant intervention target for teenagers living with DLD. It would also be interesting to explore these variables in a longitudinal design.
From a clinical perspective, our results could be used in individual interventions with adolescents with DLD by including objectives that directly target coherence and its link to perception of self-efficacy. This being said, it may also be interesting to promote skills relating to coherence and self-efficacy more systemically, e.g., in a whole school approach interventions [60,61]. A particularly promising feature of the whole school approach is that communication can then be conceptualized as a main feature of social participation and thus become a responsibility shared by all members of the school community. This would also be consistent with the type of communication environment highlighted by adolescents in a recent study where they had the opportunity to express their wish for supportive communication contexts [62]. It also follows that a collaborative approach between language and communication professionals, e.g., speech-language pathologists, and psycho-social professionals, e.g., psychologists, would be the most beneficial. This also makes sense because many teenagers living with DLD face difficulties that go beyond language and communication. Many present with poorer autonomy, emotional regulation, learning efficiency, and global mental health that call for the expertise of occupational therapists, psychologists, specialized educators, or social workers [63,64,65]. It means that the whole high school staff team as well as the parents of the teenagers should be involved [65,66,67]. Ideally, a complete multidisciplinary team would assist adolescents with DLD to overcome more of the obstacles that will stand before them while transitioning to adulthood [23,68,69,70].

4.2. Strengths

One of the strengths is the size of the sample. With 49 participants, this study represents an adequate sample of teenagers from 12 to 15 years old living with DLD. In the literature available, studies that specifically examined the communication abilities of teenagers with DLD often recruited fewer participants.
Another strength is the contribution. This study on the communication skills and the perception of self-efficacy of teenagers, aged 12 to 15 and who live with DLD, makes a valuable contribution to the knowledge base about DLD. Indeed, perception of self-efficacy had been reported as a protective factor in young adults with DLD, but no study had specifically examined this dimension with adolescents.

4.3. Limitations

A limitation is the nature of sample. The fact that the study relies on a convenience sample must be acknowledged as a limitation, especially with regard to external validity of the results. All participants come from a total of six high schools which cannot be considered representative of the population of the province of Québec. Caution must therefore be exercised in interpreting the results.
Data collection instruments. The CCC-2 and the GSER are self-reported measures and therefore not administered by professionals. Also, the Likert scales were identified as a type of response scale that can affect the quality of data [71]. For example, in the GSES, participants indicated the frequency of a behavior by choosing between (1) never, (2) sometimes, (3) often, and (4) always. The numbers 1 and 4 answers are the easiest, but the middle-numbered landmarks are not always perceived the same for all participants. Given this feature of the data, caution must be exercised in interpreting them.
Authenticity of the self-efficacy perception results. As previously mentioned, the generalized self-efficacy perceived by the parents was used to perform the Spearman’s correlation test with the communication results from the CCC-2. This decision was made because the correlation presented a better coefficient with the CCC-2 general score as well as being correlated to the teenagers’ score. Furthermore, it cannot be ruled out that the communication issues of teenagers living with DLD, in addition to their difficulties with self-awareness and self-evaluation, can make it difficult for them to answer the self-efficacy questionnaire [45,72]. Nevertheless, asking teenagers living with DLD to report about their own perceptions and experience remains the best way for other researchers to learn about them [62,73,74].

5. Conclusions

This study sheds light on communication skills and perception of self-efficacy in teenagers with DLD, confirming that stronger global communication abilities are associated with a more positive perception of self-efficacy and that this link is measurable as early as adolescence. This information is of particular interest because positive perception of self-efficacy contributes to the success of the transition from adolescence to adulthood. More specifically, good self-efficacy beliefs are known to enhance prosocial behavior, which usually brings better global well-being and even better life satisfaction [75,76,77]. These aspects could therefore be considered when supporting teenagers living with DLD [78]. Additionally, coherence was the communication ability most strongly associated with perception of self-efficacy. Considering that intervention for teenagers with DLD could continue to be improved, specifically targeting skills related to coherence in communication may be a specific element to include in future planning of interventions for this group [79].

Author Contributions

A.B.-P.: writing—original draft preparation and editing. N.G.: supervision, review and editing. C.D.: project administration and conceptualization, funding acquisition, supervision, review, and editing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

The research was funded by the Social Sciences and Research Council of Canada (grant #435-2018-0976).

Institutional Review Board Statement

This study was part of a larger project (#2019-1551) approved by the sectoral research ethics committee in rehabilitation and social integration of the CIUSSS of the Capitale-Nationale on 7 November 2018.

Informed Consent Statement

Informed consent was obtained from all participants involved in the study. Since the target population is of minor age, parental consent was also obtained.

Data Availability Statement

Data are unavailable due to privacy or ethical restrictions.

Acknowledgments

We want to thank the participants, their families, and teachers. We also acknowledge the assistance of Université Laval staff for help with the statistical analysis.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Norbury, C.F.; Gooch, D.; Wray, C.; Baird, G.; Charman, T.; Simonoff, E.; Vamvakas, G.; Pickles, A. The impact of nonverbal ability on prevalence and clinical presentation of language disorder: Evidence from a population study. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2016, 57, 1247–1257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Clegg, J.; Crawford, E.; Spencer, S.; Matthews, D. Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) in Young People Leaving Care in England: A Study Profiling the Language, Literacy and Communication Abilities of Young People Transitioning from Care to Independence. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2021, 18, 4107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  3. Bishop, D.V.; Snowling, M.J.; Thompson, P.A.; Greenhalgh, T.; Catalise-2 Consortium; Adams, C.; Archibald, L.; Baird, G.; Bauer, A.; Bellair, J.; et al. Phase 2 of CATALISE: A multinational and multidisciplinary Delphi consensus study of problems with language development: Terminology. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2017, 58, 1068–1080. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Falardeau, S.; Lanthier, M.; Tétreault, V.; Gauthier-Chamard, L.; Morin, F.; Desmarais, C. Chapitre 4: Trouble développemental du langage à l’adolescence et à l’âge. In Transition de L’école à la Vie Active Pour les Jeunes Ayant des Incapacités; Livres en ligne du CRIRES: Québec, QC, Canada, 2018; p. 72. [Google Scholar]
  5. Carroll, C.; Dockrell, J. Enablers and challenges of post-16 education and employment outcomes: The perspectives of young adults with a history of SLI. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2012, 47, 567–577. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Clegg, J.; Hollis, C.; Mawhood, L.; Rutter, M. Developmental language disorders—A follow-up in later adult life. Cognitive, language and psychosocial outcomes. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2005, 46, 128–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Conti-Ramsden, G.; Botting, N. Emotional health in adolescents with and without a history of specific language impairment (SLI). J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2008, 49, 516–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Conti-Ramsden, G.; Durkin, K. Language and independence in adolescents with and without a history of specific language impairment (SLI). J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2008, 51, 70–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Durkin, K.; Conti-Ramsden, G. Young people with specific language impairment: A review of social and emotional functioning in adolescence. Child Lang. Teach. Ther. 2010, 26, 105–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Dubois, P.; St-Pierre, M.-C.; Desmarais, C.; Guay, F. Young adults with developmental language disorder: A systematic review of education, employment, and independent living outcomes. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2020, 63, 3786–3800. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Law, J.; Rush, R.; Schoon, I.; Parsons, S. Modeling developmental language difficulties from school entry into adulthood: Literacy, mental health, and employment outcomes. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2009, 52, 1401–1416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Schoon, I.; Parsons, S.; Rush, R.; Law, J. Children’s language ability and psychosocial development: A 29-year follow-up study. Pediatrics 2010, 126, e73–e80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Törnqvist, M.C.; Thulin, S.; Segnestam, Y.; Horowitz, L. Adult people with language impairment and their life situation. Commun. Disord. Q. 2009, 30, 237–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. van den Bedem, N.P.; Dockrell, J.E.; van Alphen, P.M.; Kalicharan, S.V.; Rieffe, C. Victimization, bullying, and emotional competence: Longitudinal associations in (pre) adolescents with and without developmental language disorder. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2018, 61, 2028–2044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Wadman, R.; Botting, N.; Durkin, K.; Conti-Ramsden, G. Changes in emotional health symptoms in adolescents with specific language impairment. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2011, 46, 641–656. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wadman, R.; Durkin, K.; Conti-Ramsden, G. Close relationships in adolescents with and without a history of specific language impairment. Lang. Speech Hear. Serv. Sch. 2011, 42, 41–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Whitehouse, A.J.; Watt, H.J.; Line, E.A.; Bishop, D.V. Adult psychosocial outcomes of children with specific language impairment, pragmatic language impairment and autism. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2009, 44, 511–528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Durkin, K.; Conti-Ramsden, G. Language, social behavior, and the quality of friendships in adolescents with and without a history of specific language impairment. Child Dev. 2007, 78, 1441–1457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Newman, L.; Wagner, M.; Knokey, A.-M.; Marder, C.; Nagle, K.; Shaver, D.; Wei, X. The Post-High School Outcomes of Young Adults with Disabilities up to 8 Years after High School: A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). NCSER 2011-3005; National Center for Special Education Research: Washington, DC, USA, 2011.
  20. Collins, G.; Wolter, J.A. Facilitating postsecondary transition and promoting academic success through language/literacy-based self-determination strategies. Lang. Speech Hear. Serv. Sch. 2018, 49, 176–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Durkin, K.; Toseeb, U.; Pickles, A.; Botting, N.; Conti-Ramsden, G. Learning to drive in young adults with language impairment. Transp. Res. Part F Traffic Psychol. Behav. 2016, 42, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Sylvestre, A.; Nadeau, L.; Charron, L.; Larose, N.; Lepage, C. Social participation by children with developmental coordination disorder compared to their peers. Disabil. Rehabil. 2013, 35, 1814–1820. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Winstanley, M.; Durkin, K.; Webb, R.T.; Conti-Ramsden, G. Financial capability and functional financial literacy in young adults with developmental language disorder. Autism Dev. Lang. Impair. 2018, 3, 2396941518794500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Conti-Ramsden, G.; Mok, P.L.; Pickles, A.; Durkin, K. Adolescents with a history of specific language impairment (SLI): Strengths and difficulties in social, emotional and behavioral functioning. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2013, 34, 4161–4169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Leve, L.D.; Kim, H.K.; Pears, K.C. Childhood temperament and family environment as predictors of internalizing and externalizing trajectories from ages 5 to 17. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2005, 33, 505–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Lindsay, G.; Dockrell, J.E. Longitudinal patterns of behavioral, emotional, and social difficulties and self-concepts in adolescents with a history of specific language impairment. Lang. Speech Hear. Serv. Sch. 2012, 43, 445–460. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Mok, P.L.; Pickles, A.; Durkin, K.; Conti-Ramsden, G. Longitudinal trajectories of peer relations in children with specific language impairment. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2014, 55, 516–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Beck, L.; Kumschick, I.R.; Eid, M.; Klann-Delius, G. Relationship between language competence and emotional competence in middle childhood. Emotion 2012, 12, 503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Spackman, M.P.; Fujiki, M.; Brinton, B. Understanding emotions in context: The effects of language impairments on children’s ability to infer emotional reactions. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2006, 41, 173–188. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Snowling, M.J.; Bishop, D.V.; Stothard, S.E.; Chipchase, B.; Kaplan, C. Psychosocial outcomes at 15 years of children with a preschool history of speech-language impairment. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2006, 47, 759–765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Botting, N.; Durkin, K.; Toseeb, U.; Pickles, A.; Conti-Ramsden, G. Emotional health, support, and self-efficacy in young adults with a history of language impairment. Br. J. Dev. Psychol. 2016, 34, 538–554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Bandura, A. Comment le Sentiment D’efficacité Personnelle Influence Notre Qualité de Vie. In Auto-Efficacité; de Boeck supérieur: Paris, France, 2019; Volume 3. [Google Scholar]
  33. Steca, P.; Abela, J.R.; Monzani, D.; Greco, A.; Hazel, N.; Hankin, B. Cognitive vulnerability to depressive symptoms in children: The protective role of self-efficacy beliefs in a multi-wave longitudinal study. J. Abnorm. Child Psychol. 2014, 42, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Luszczynska, A.; Gutiérrez-Doña, B.; Schwarzer, R. General self-efficacy in various domains of human functioning: Evidence from five countries. Int. J. Psychol. 2005, 40, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Marcionetti, J.; Rossier, J. Global life satisfaction in adolescence. J. Individ. Differ. 2016, 7, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Test, D.W.; Mazzotti, V.L.; Mustian, A.L.; Fowler, C.H.; Kortering, L.; Kohler, P. Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Dev. Except. Individ. 2009, 32, 160–181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Bishop, D.V.M. Childen’s Communication Checklist, 2nd ed.; PsychCorp: San Antonio, TX, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  38. Vézina, M.; Samson Morasse, C.; Gauthier Desgagné, J.; Fossard, M.; Sylvestre, A. Development of a Quebec French version of the Children’s Communication Checklist-2 (CCC-2). Translation, adaptation and conceptual equivalence Développement de la Version Québécoise Francophone du Children’s Communication Checklist—2 (CCC-2): Normalisation et Équivalence Métrique. Can. J. Speech-Lang. Pathol. Audiol. 2011, 35, 244–253. [Google Scholar]
  39. de la Torre Carril, A.; Durán-Bouza, M.; Pérez-Pereira, M. Capacity of the CCC-2 to Discriminate ASD from Other Neurodevelopmental Disorders. Children 2021, 8, 640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Norbury, C.F.; Nash, M.; Baird, G.; Bishop, D. Using a parental checklist to identify diagnostic groups in children with communication impairment: A validation of the Children’s Communication Checklist–2. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2004, 39, 345–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Schwarzer, R.; Jerusalem, M. Generalized Self-Efficacy Scale. In Measures in Health Psychology: A User’s Portfolio; Johnston, M., Wright, S.C., Weinman, J., Eds.; NFER-NELSON: Windsor, UK, 1995; Available online: https://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~health/engscal.htm (accessed on 4 October 2024).
  42. Saleh, D.; Romo, L.; Camart, N. Validation de L’échelle du Sentiment D’auto-Efficacité GSE chez des Étudiants Universitaires Français. In Proceedings of the 44e congrès annuel de TCC, Paris, France, 16–18 December 2016. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Andrés-Roqueta, C.; Adrian, J.E.; Clemente, R.A.; Villanueva, L. Social cognition makes an independent contribution to peer relations in children with Specific Language Impairment. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2016, 49–50, 277–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Margalit, D.; Ben-Ari, A. The Effect of Wilderness Therapy on Adolescents’ Cognitive Autonomy and Self-efficacy: Results of a Non-randomized Trial. Child Youth Care Forum 2014, 43, 181–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Trainor, A.A. Perceptions of Adolescent Girls with LD regarding Self-Determination and Postsecondary Transition Planning. Learn. Disabil. Q. 2007, 30, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wadman, R.; Durkin, K.; Conti-Ramsden, G. Self-esteem, shyness, and sociability in adolescents with specific language impairment (SLI). J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2008, 51, 938–952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Hannus, S. Children with Specific Language Impairment in Primary Health Care: Tests, Assessment, Prevalence and Home Activities. Academic Dissertation, the Department of General Practice and Primary Health Care, University of Helsinki, Helsinki, Finland, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  48. Bruce, B.; Thernlund, G.; Nettelbladt, U. ADHD and language impairment: A study of the parent questionnaire FTF (Five to Fifteen). Eur. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry 2006, 15, 52–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Tomblin, J.B.; Records, N.L.; Buckwalter, P.; Zhang, X.; Smith, E.; O’Brien, M. Prevalence of specific language impairment in kindergarten children. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 1997, 40, 1245–1260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Hojati, M.; Abbasi, M. Comparisons of Self-Efficacy and Hope among Students with and without Learning Disabilities. J. Spec. Educ. Rehabil. 2013, 14, 66–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Sawari, S.S.; Mansor, N. A study of student’s general self-efficacy related to gender differences. Int. J. Inf. Futur. Res. 2013, 1, 62–67. [Google Scholar]
  52. Rossi, T.; Trevisol, A.; Santos-Nunes, D.d.; Dapieve-Patias, N.; Hohendorff, J.V. Perceived overall self-efficacy and motivation to learn in high school teenagers. Acta Colomb. Psicol. 2020, 23, 264–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Barblett, L.; Maloney, C. Complexities of assessing social and emotional competence and wellbeing in young children. Australas. J. Early Child. 2010, 35, 13–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Gough Kenyon, S.M.; Palikara, O.; Lucas, R.M. Consistency of parental and self-reported adolescent wellbeing: Evidence from developmental language disorder. Front. Psychol. 2021, 12, 503. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Hughes, D.M.; Turkstra, L.S.; Wulfeck, B.B. Parent and self-ratings of executive function in adolescents with specific language impairment. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2009, 44, 901–916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. St Clair, M.C.; Pickles, A.; Durkin, K.; Conti-Ramsden, G. A longitudinal study of behavioral, emotional and social difficulties in individuals with a history of specific language impairment (SLI). J. Commun. Disord. 2011, 44, 186–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Tilton-Weaver, L. Adolescents’ information management: Comparing ideas about why adolescents disclose to or keep secrets from their parents. J. Youth Adolesc. 2014, 43, 803–813. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Durkin, K.; Simkin, Z.; Knox, E.; Conti-Ramsden, G. Specific language impairment and school outcomes. II: Educational context, student satisfaction, and post-compulsory progress. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2009, 44, 36–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  59. Erozkan, A. The Effect of Communication Skills and Interpersonal Problem Solving Skills on Social Self-Efficacy. Educ. Sci. Theory Pract. 2013, 13, 739–745. [Google Scholar]
  60. Foley, K.; D’Arcy, C.; Lawless, A. “There’s been a huge change”: Educator experiences of a whole-school SLP-led project to address developmental language disorder in three Australian secondary schools. Int. J. Speech-Lang. Pathol. 2023, 25, 619–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  61. Lowe, K.; Skrebneva, I.; Burgess, C.; Harrison, N.; Vass, G. Towards an Australian model of culturally nourishing schooling. J. Curric. Stud. 2021, 53, 467–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Ekström, A.; Sandgren, O.; Sahlén, B.; Samuelsson, C. ‘It depends on who I’m with’: How young people with developmental language disorder describe their experiences of language and communication in school. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2023, 58, 1168–1181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Koyuncu, Z.; Zabcı, N.; Seçen Yazıcı, M.; Sandıkçı, T.; Çetin Kara, H.; Doğangün, B. Evaluating the association between developmental language disorder and depressive symptoms in preschool children. Appl. Neuropsychol. Child 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Griffiths, S.; Suksasilp, C.; Lucas, L.; Sebastian, C.L.; Norbury, C.; SCALES Team. Relationship between early language competence and cognitive emotion regulation in adolescence. R. Soc. Open Sci. 2021, 8, 210742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Valera-Pozo, M.; Adrover-Roig, D.; Pérez-Castelló, J.A.; Sanchez-Azanza, V.A.; Aguilar-Mediavilla, E. Behavioral, emotional and school adjustment in adolescents with and without developmental language disorder (DLD) is related to family involvement. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2020, 17, 1949. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Anjaswarni, T.; Nursalam, N.; Widati, S.; Yusuf, A.; Tristiana, R.D. Development of a self-efficacy model in junior and senior high school students based on religiosity and family determinants: A cross sectional approach. Int. J. Adolesc. Med. Health 2019, 33, 20190023. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Shkullaku, R. The relationship between self-efficacy and academic performance in the context of gender among Albanian students. Eur. Acad. Res. 2013, 1, 467–478. [Google Scholar]
  68. Biggs, E.E.; Hacker, R. Engaging stakeholders to improve social validity: Intervention priorities for students with complex communication needs. Augment. Altern. Commun. 2021, 37, 25–38. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Franco, G.d.R.; Rodrigues, M.C. Self-efficacy and positive youth development: A narrative review of the literature. Trends Psychol. 2018, 26, 2267–2282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Msall, M.E.; Sobotka, S.A.; Dmowska, A.; Hogan, D.; Sullivan, M. Life Course Health Development Outcomes After Prematurity: Developing a Community, Clinical, and Translational Research Agenda to Optimize Health, Behavior, and Functioning. In Handbook of Life Course Health Development; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2018; pp. 321–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Little, T.D. Core principles of life course health development methodology and analytics. In Handbook of Life Course Health Development; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 523–540. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Lackaye, T.; Margalit, M.; Ziv, O.; Ziman, T. Comparisons of Self-Efficacy, Mood, Effort, and Hope Between Students with Learning Disabilities and Their Non-LD-Matched Peers. Learn. Disabil. Res. Pract. 2006, 21, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Owen, R.; Hayett, L.; Roulstone, S. Children’s views of speech and language therapy in school: Consulting children with communication difficulties. Child Lang. Teach. Ther. 2004, 20, 55–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Palikara, O.; Lindsay, G.; Dockrell, J.E. Voices of young people with a history of specific language impairment (SLI) in the first year of post-16 education. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2009, 44, 56–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Caprara, G.V.; Steca, P. Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of prosocial behavior conducive to life satisfaction across ages. J. Soc. Clin. Psychol. 2005, 24, 191–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Caprara, G.V.; Steca, P.; Gerbino, M.; Paciello, M.; Vecchio, G.M. Looking for adolescents’ well-being: Self-efficacy beliefs as determinants of positive thinking and happiness. Epidemiol. Psychiatr. Sci. 2006, 15, 30–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Vecchio, G.M.; Gerbino, M.; Pastorelli, C.; Del Bove, G.; Caprara, G.V. Multi-faceted self-efficacy beliefs as predictors of life satisfaction in late adolescence. Personal. Individ. Differ. 2007, 43, 1807–1818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Nicola, K.; Watter, P. Health-related quality of life from the perspective of children with severe specific language impairment. Health Qual. Life Outcomes 2015, 13, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Michallet, B.; Mongrain, J.; Duchesne, L. Perceptions of the parents of dysphasic children and adolescents, aged 2 to 17 years, of access to speech therapy services in Quebec. Rev. De Psychoéduc. 2018, 47, 157–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Table 1. Sample description (n = 49).
Table 1. Sample description (n = 49).
VariablesResults
Gender33 boys, 16 girls
Age x ¯ = 13 years 6 months ± 8.7 months
[12 years 1 month–15 years 1 month]
Native language44 French, 2 English, 3 others
Co-occurrences35 yes, 14 no
Family structure11 single parent, 29 original two parents, 8 recomposed
Parents with language difficulties22 yes, 24 no
Mother’s level of education Below high school07 yes, 37 no
Table 2. Language and communication skills assessed with the CCC-2 (n = 49).
Table 2. Language and communication skills assessed with the CCC-2 (n = 49).
ScalesPercentile Ranks
x ¯ ± sd
[σ]		% of Participants < 10th Percentile
A. Speech26.06 ± 26.08
[0.1–75]		33
B. Syntax24.94 ± 25.24
[0.1–75]		33
C. Semantics16.57 ± 20,92
[0.1–84]		57
D. Coherence17.09 ± 20.55
[0.1–84]		51
E. Initiation33.57 ± 27.11
[1–95]		27
F. Scripted language18.24 ± 18.32
[1–75]		53
G. Use of context19.44 ± 17.54
[0.4–75]		43
H. Nonverbal communication24.11 ± 21.07
[0.4–75]		39
I. Social relations25.95 ± 22.18
[0.4–75]		27
J. Interests32.10 ± 25.42
[1–91]		24
General16.98 ± 20.18
[0.1–86]		51
x ¯ : mean, sd: standard deviation, σ: range.
Table 3. Generalized self-efficacy ratings perceived by the parents (GSERP) and by the teenagers (GSERT) (n = 49).
Table 3. Generalized self-efficacy ratings perceived by the parents (GSERP) and by the teenagers (GSERT) (n = 49).
RespondersRaw Scores (/40)
Parents (GSERP)28.69 ± 4.97
Adolescents (GSERT)29.63 ± 4.80
Table 4. Spearman’s correlations between communication scores in percentile and generalized self-efficacy.
Table 4. Spearman’s correlations between communication scores in percentile and generalized self-efficacy.
VariablesCoefficientsp
GSERPCSr = 0.616 b<0.001
GSERTCSr = 0.434 a0.002
GSERTGSERPr = 0.520 b<0.001
a Indicates a weak positive correlation. b Indicate a fair to moderate positive correlation.
Table 5. Spearman’s correlations between generalized self-efficacy reported by parents and communication subscales.
Table 5. Spearman’s correlations between generalized self-efficacy reported by parents and communication subscales.
CS SubscalesCoefficientsp
A. Speechr = 0.254 a0.078
B. Syntaxr = 0.390 a0.006
C. Semanticr = 0.442 a0.001
D. Coherencer = 0.716 b<0.001
E. Initiationr = 0.581 b<0.001
F. Scripted languager = 0.516 b<0.001
G. Use of contextr = 0.649 b<0.001
H. Nonverbal communicationr = 0.476 a<0.001
I. Social relationsr = 0.448 a0.001
J. Interestsr = 0.577 b<0.001
a Indicates a weak positive correlation. b Indicates a fair to moderate positive correlation.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Buteau-Poulin, A.; Gaudreau, N.; Desmarais, C. Developmental Language Disorder at Adolescence: Links Between Communication Skills and Self-Efficacy Ratings. Disabilities 2025, 5, 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5010030

AMA Style

Buteau-Poulin A, Gaudreau N, Desmarais C. Developmental Language Disorder at Adolescence: Links Between Communication Skills and Self-Efficacy Ratings. Disabilities. 2025; 5(1):30. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5010030

Chicago/Turabian Style

Buteau-Poulin, Anabel, Nancy Gaudreau, and Chantal Desmarais. 2025. "Developmental Language Disorder at Adolescence: Links Between Communication Skills and Self-Efficacy Ratings" Disabilities 5, no. 1: 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5010030

APA Style

Buteau-Poulin, A., Gaudreau, N., & Desmarais, C. (2025). Developmental Language Disorder at Adolescence: Links Between Communication Skills and Self-Efficacy Ratings. Disabilities, 5(1), 30. https://doi.org/10.3390/disabilities5010030

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop