LSHSS
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools Vol.38 309-314 October 2007. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2007/033)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Blanton, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Dagenais, P. A.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Blanton, D. J.
Right arrow Articles by Dagenais, P. A.

Articles

Comparison of Language Skills of Adjudicated and Nonadjudicated Adolescent Males and Females

Debra J. Blanton
Paul A. Dagenais

University of South Alabama, Mobile

Contact author: Paul A. Dagenais, Speech Pathology & Audiology, University of South Alabama, 2000 University Commons, Mobile, AL 36688-0002. E-mail: pdagenais{at}usouthal.edu.

Purpose: This study attempted to determine whether there were any differences or similarities in the basic cognitive and language skills of 4 groups of adolescents: adjudicated (a judge's decision to establish responsibility for a delinquent act) and nonadjudicated male and females.

Method: The 4 groups of adolescents were 18 adjudicated females, 18 nonadjudicated females, 14 adjudicated males, and 14 nonadjudicated males. They were evaluated using the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (K–BIT; A. S. Kaufman & N. L. Kaufman, 1990) as a screener for intelligence and the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals—3 (CELF–3; E. Semel, E. Wiig, & W. Secord, 1995) as a screener for language skills.

Results: No gender differences were found between the groups for either the K–BIT or the CELF–3. All groups scored within normal limits on the K–BIT subtests, but lower on the vocabulary portion of the K–BIT compared to the matrices (nonverbal) portion. There were differences found between adjudicated and nonadjudicated groups on the CELF–3, with the adjudicated groups having lower scores.

Implications: As the majority of adjudicated adolescents had not been previously identified as having difficulties with language abilities, this population could benefit from early assessment. Also, children who are at risk for incarceration should be screened for possible language deficits that could contribute to the many difficulties experienced by adolescents.

KEY WORDS: adolescent language, language delay, intelligence, incarceration, adjudicated







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 2007 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.