Language Error TypeNCT02663011
Language Error Type Evaluation in Developmental Delay Preschool Children by PLS-C
An observational study of Language Error Type, run by Taipei Medical University Hospital.
Trial summary
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. Read more about this study
- Who is it for?
- Ages 3 to 5 years, men only
- Conditions the study is for
- Language Error Type
- What is being tested?
- Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin
- How many people
- 54 participants
- Where
- No sites listed yet
- Study dates
- Aug 2015to Oct 2015
- Phase
- Observational
- Are there results?
- None posted in the registry
Key requirements
Who can take part, as listed by the sponsor. Only the study team can confirm whether you are eligible, so take this list to your doctor.
- Ages 3 to 5 years
- Men only
- No healthy volunteers
- Child
Study population: 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.
Who may be able to join
- 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.
Who cannot join
- Those normal or PLS-C score was less than 1.5SD below normal were excluded.
About this study
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.
Read more
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
Read the detailed description
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
- Conditions
- Language Error Type
- Being tested
- Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin
What participants receive
What participants receive. In a randomised study each person is assigned to one group by chance.
Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), LinOther
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.
| Study group | Role | What they receive |
|---|---|---|
| 5YR boy | Not described Receives: Other: Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin | |
| 5YR girl | Not described Receives: Other: Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin | |
| 4YR boy | Not described Receives: Other: Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin | |
| 4YR girl | Not described Receives: Other: Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin | |
| 3YR boy | Not described Receives: Other: Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin |
What is being measured
The primary outcome is the main question the study is designed to answer.
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.
Measured: 2011 Jan to 2014 Dec
Timeline
From the start of the study to its completion; the mark is today. Estimated dates are the sponsor’s plan.
- First posted26 Jan 2016 (estimated)
- Study startAug 2015
- Primary completionOct 2015
- Study completionOct 2015
Resources
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govThe registry entry this page is built from, with its full change history.
- Other trials for Language Error TypeStudies of the same condition, open and under way.
- What the trial phases meanHow a treatment moves from first tests in people to approval.
More details
For doctors and researchers: how the study is designed, who runs it, and its registry IDs.
Study design
- Study type
- Observational
- Observational model
- Case only
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Enrolment
- 54 participants (actual)
Sponsor and investigators
- Lead sponsor
- Taipei Medical University Hospital
- Sponsor type
- University, hospital or other
- Responsible party
- Sponsor
IDs, dates and publications
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02663011
- Sponsor's protocol ID
- N201508007
- Status last verified
- Jan 2016
- First submitted
- 21 Jan 2016
- Last updated
- 26 Jan 2016
- Results posted
- No
Study at a glance
From the registry record, last updated by the sponsor on 26 Jan 2016. Recruitment status is as the sponsor reported it: confirm with the study team.
- Official title
- Language Error Type Evaluation in Developmental Delay Preschool Children by PLS-C
- ClinicalTrials.gov ID
- NCT02663011
- Acronym / sponsor ID
- N201508007
- Conditions
- Language Error Type
- Study type
- Observational
- Recruitment status
- Completed
- Enrolment
- 54 participants (actual)
- Lead sponsor
- Taipei Medical University HospitalUniversity, hospital or other
- Study start
- Aug 2015
- Primary completion
- Oct 2015 (actual)
- Study completion
- Oct 2015 (actual)
- First posted
- 26 Jan 2016 (estimated)
- Results
- Not posted in the source record
Clinical summary
The research question as the sponsor registered it. This describes what the study plans to test, not what it found.
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
Detailed description
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
Study design
- Observational model
- Case only
- Time perspective
- Retrospective
- Number of arms
- 5
| Arm | Type | Receives |
|---|---|---|
| 5YR boy | – | Other: Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin |
| 5YR girl | – | Other: Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin |
| 4YR boy | – | Other: Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin |
| 4YR girl | – | Other: Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin |
| 3YR boy | – | Other: Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), Lin |
Who may qualify
- Ages
- 3 to 5 years
- Sex
- Male only
- Healthy volunteers
- Not accepted
- Age groups
- Child
- Study population
- 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.
Key inclusion criteria (1 listed)
- 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.
Key exclusion criteria (1 listed)
- Those normal or PLS-C score was less than 1.5SD below normal were excluded.
Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening; this overview does not establish that a patient qualifies. Full inclusion and exclusion criteria.
Interventions
| Intervention | Type | Arms |
|---|---|---|
| Language Evaluation-Preschool Language Scale Corrected edition(PLS-C), LinTo 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. | Other | 3YR boy, 4YR boy, 4YR girl, 5YR boy, 5YR girl |
Primary outcome
What's the difference of language error types between boy and girl.
Time frame: 2011 Jan to 2014 Dec
In overall performance, expression, and comprehension, there was no difference between boy and girl by t-test in all ages.
Results and safety
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
Research links
- Official record on ClinicalTrials.govLast updated by the sponsor 26 Jan 2016.
Referral and contact
AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals. Contact the study team or a site listed below; they decide who can take part. This study is not recruiting at the moment.
The record lists no contact. Use the official record to reach the sponsor.
Questions about this trial
What is this clinical trial studying?
An observational study of Language Error Type, run by Taipei Medical University Hospital.
The full registered description is in the About this study section and the official record.
Who may be eligible to take part?
The sponsor lists 1 inclusion and 1 exclusion criteria. Eligibility is decided by the study team after screening, so read the full criteria and contact a listed site.
Is this clinical trial currently recruiting?
The record says: finished, as of the sponsor's last update on 26 Jan 2016. Status can change between updates, so confirm with the study contact before making plans.
What are the possible benefits and risks?
They depend on the study and the treatment, and no study can promise a benefit. The study team explains the known risks during informed consent, before anyone joins; the record itself does not list them.
Are results available for this study?
The study is completed, but results are not available in the source record. That does not mean the treatment did or did not work.
How can a doctor refer a patient or contact the research team?
The record lists no contact. The official record names the sponsor, who can be asked directly. AzTrials does not enrol participants or take referrals.
What does the primary outcome measure?
What's the difference of language error types between boy and girl. (time frame: 2011 Jan to 2014 Dec). It is what the study was designed to measure, not a finding.
Where can I read the original study information?
Does a listing mean the treatment is approved or proven to work?
No. A listing means the study is registered. It does not show that the treatment is safe, works, or is approved by a regulator.
How often is this information updated?
AzTrials copies changed records from ClinicalTrials.gov every night and reloads the whole registry every week. The sponsor last updated this record on 26 Jan 2016.