Posted on by — Leave a comment

Improving Social Skills in Children With Psychiatric Disturbances Speechpathology.com Webinar

Will be presenting a webinar via speechpathology.com on July 2nd 2012 at 12pm EDT entitled

Improving Social Skills in Children with Psychiatric Disturbances

Course Abstract

This course is aimed at increasing the participants’ knowledge regarding the role of SLPs in the treatment of social pragmatic language disorders of school-age children with psychiatric impairments. It will review social pragmatic treatment approaches which can be used for children with psychiatric impairments, explain the functions of common challenging behaviors, as well as list a number of proactive behavioral intervention approaches professionals can implement to decrease challenging behaviors and increase compliance and cooperation in therapy sessions.

Course Objectives

  • After this course, participants will be able to identify social pragmatic deficit areas of children with psychiatric impairments.
  • After this course, participants will be able to describe components and targets of successful social skills treatments.
  • After this course, participants will be able to list common challenging behavior types and explain proactive behavior strategies used to prevent inappropriate behaviors from occurring.
  • After this course, participants will be able to describe social pragmatic treatment approaches that can be used for children with psychiatric impairments.
  • After this course, participants will be able to identify materials that can be used to address relevant social pragmatic treatment goals.
Posted on by — 3 Comments

Dinner with Friends or the Value of Interdisciplinary Collaboration and Follow Up

Several months ago I had dinner with two of my colleagues, a pediatrician and a clinical social worker, to iron out the details of our upcoming conference presentation. As time went by we managed to discuss every topic under the sun, yet still the subject of our presentation was sadly not on the agenda. Exhausted from working at the hospital a full day and seeing private clients afterwards, I was getting distinctly antsy as the hand clock kept climbing closer to midnight.

The conversation began to feel more productive when we started to touch base on our mutual clients.   Mostly they wanted to hear from me, since they both share an office suite and I was the only one located off-site. So, even though we all individually frequently conferred via phone regarding clients, that was the first time all three of us got together in the same room to discuss them. Quickly, I rattled off each of my clients’ progress in therapy, until I got to D, and paused.  Oh, don’t get me wrong I am very proud of my work with D, whom I’ve been working with for several years, and who went from being limitedly verbal, severely echolalic, and “autistic like” at the age of 4-5 to fluent complex sentence speaker, fledgling problem solver, and a little charmer by the age of 6-5. Yet something was still bothering me regarding D’s performance that I couldn’t put my finger on. Despite the absence of a particular diagnosis (e.g., ASD) and significant gains, his issues with attention and cognition persisted, and his progress was still halting and inconsistent, even with rigorous language therapy and supplementary academic instruction at home 4 times a week.

In my desperation I have already considered and mentally rejected a number of referrals (“No it doesn’t seem to be a psychiatric issue”, “Yes he can benefit from a neurological but should I refer him to a psychological assessment first, could it be an IQ issue?” I pondered out loud as I shared my concerns with my colleagues.  Both of them haven’t seen him for about 6 months so the clinical social worker immediately whipped out his chart busily looking for appropriate information, while the pediatrician started to frown, searching her memory for an “appropriate entry.”  “Wait a second”, she said, “when I last saw him, during his physical exam I saw brown café au lait spots on his skin that I didn’t like at all, so I referred mom to get some blood work done but I haven’t heard from her since that time. Since you see her every week, can you please ask her to call me ASAP so I could remind her to do the blood test, as the information you are telling me makes it even more imperative that she follow up with the lab work.”

Right away, I became alert.  Though the pediatrician was not stating her suspicious explicitly, through years of working with medical professionals I was familiar with the implications of what café au lait spots can potentially represent and that is neurofibromatosis. It is a neurocutaneous syndrome that leads to benign tumor growths in various parts of the body and can affect the brain, spinal cord, nerves, skin, and other body systems.  In additional to all the medical implications of this syndrome (e.g., tumors becoming cancerous), it can also cause cognitive deficits and subsequent learning disabilities that affect appropriate knowledge acquisition and retention.

To me the situation was clear, no matter what the outcome, as the only team professional in contact with the parent at the time, it was my job to counsel the parent that she get in touch with the pediatrician so she can successfully pursue the recommended course of action.  It may not have been the position I wanted to be in but unfortunately I knew that if this matter was left unpursued, I was left with a whole host of unanswered questions regarding further treatment options for this child.

I use the above example to emphasize the value and importance of working as part of a team to treat the “whole” child.  Therapists specializing in working with children on the spectrum are most familiar with being part of a team, since they are just one of many professionals such as behaviorists, OT’s, psychologists or neurologists who are working with a child.  Being part of a team is also a much more acceptable practice when a child is treated in a hospital or a rehab setting and presents with a complex disorder (e.g., is medically fragile, has a genetic syndrome, etc).

However, in our field, even outside of specialty settings (hospital/rehab) we are frequently confronted with speech or language disordered clients who stump our thinking processes, and who require the team approach (including the involvement of specialized medical professionals).  Yet oftentimes that creates a significant challenge for many clinicians who are working contractually (through an agency) in school settings or in private practice.  Being part of a team when one is contractor or a sole practitioner in a private practice is a much more difficult feat, especially when the clinicians are just striking out on their own for the first time.

Both interdisciplinary and multidisciplinary teamwork is oftentimes so crucial in our field. Working as part of a team allows us to collectively pursue common goals, combine our selective expertise, initiate a discussion to solve difficult problems, as well as to have professional lifelines when working on difficult cases.   Different providers (neurologist, SLP, OT) see different symptoms as well as different aspects of the patient’s disorder. Consequently, different providers bring different perspectives to the table, which ultimately positively contributes to the treatment of the whole child.

Interestingly, many private speech language practitioners have wide referral networks (e.g., pediatricians, OT’s, PT’s and others who refer clients to them) yet when asked regarding frequency of contact with respect to conferences/discussions about the progress of specific clients, many clinicians draw a blank.

So how can we develop productive professional relationships with other service providers which go beyond the initial referral? I’ll be the first one to admit that it is not an easy accomplishment especially which it comes to physicians such as psychiatrists, neurologists, geneticists, or developmental pediatricians.  I can tell you that while some of my professional relationships came easy, others took years to attain and refine.

In my hospital setting I work as part of a team. However, when I first started out in private practice, in a fairly short period of time I ended up having a number of clients with complex diagnoses and no one to refer them to.  What complicated matters further that in contrast to them being referred to me by a pediatrician, these clients came to me first, since their most “visible issues” at the time were speech language deficits. I had to be the one to initiate the referral process to suggest to their parents relevant medical professionals, which needed to be visited in order to figure out why their children were having such complex language difficulties (among other symptoms) in the first place.

So here are a few suggestions on how to initiate and maintain professional relationships with medical service providers.

Start with doing a little research.  You have worked hard to build your practice and your clients deserve the best, so locate the best medical service providers in your area. In the past I’ve had some excellent recommendations from locally based colleagues who were active on the ASHA discussion forums, other client’s parents who already did the necessary legwork, or hospital based colleagues who recommended peers in private practice. Several times I actually liked the initial medical reports I’ve received on a client so much – that I’ve referred other clients to the same doctor.

When word of mouth fails to do the trick, I turn to “Google” to provide me with desired results.  Surprisingly, simply typing in “best _______in _____(name of state)” frequently does the trick and allows me to locate relevant professionals, after browsing through the multitude of web reviews.

Of course depending on the length of client treatment, you will have different relationships with different medical providers.   I have collaborated for years with some (e.g., pediatrician, psychiatrist), and only infrequently spoken with others (geneticist, otolaryngologist, pediatric ophthalmologist).

Typically, when I refer a client for additional testing or consultation, in my referral letter to the physician, I request to receive the results in writing, asking the physician to also include relevant recommendations (if needed). Oftentimes, I also try to set some time to discuss the findings in a phone call in case I have any additional questions or concerns. Of course, I also send the physician (and other providers working with the child) the information from my end (progress reports, evaluations) so all of us can have a more comprehensive profile of the client’s disorder/deficit.

After all, ST’s, OT’s and PT’s are not the only ones who are dependent on information from doctors in order to do our work better. There are times when physicians need information from us in order to move further in treatment such as order specific tests. For example, just recently a pediatrician used my therapy progress report in conjunction with another provider’s, to order an MRI on our mutual client.  The pediatrician had significant concerns over client’s development and presenting symptomatology, and needed to gather additional reports supporting her cause for concern in order to justify her course of action (ordering an MRI) to the HMO.

As mentioned previously there are numerous benefits to teamwork including the fact that it allows for appreciation of other disciplines, creation of functional goals for the child,  integration of interventions as well as “brings together diverse knowledge and skills and can result in quicker decision making” (Catlett & Halper, 1992).

Given the above, it is important that speech language pathologists help to coordinate care and maintain relationships with other medical and related professionals who are treating the child.  This will improve decision making, allow the professionals to address the child’s deficits in a holistic manner, an even potentially expedite the child’s length of stay in therapy.

References:

Catlett, C & Halper, A (1992) Team Approaches: Working Together to Improve Quality. ASHA: Quality Improvement Digest. http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/aud/TeamApproaches.pdf

National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) Neurofibromatosis Information Page http://www.ninds.nih.gov/disorders/neurofibromatosis/neurofibromatosis.htm

Posted on by — 2 Comments

Multicultural Considerations in Assessment of Play

As speech language pathologist part of my job is to play! Since play assessment is a routine part of speech language evaluations for preschool and early school-aged children, I often find myself on the carpet in my office racing cars, making sure that all the “Little People” get their turn on the toy Ferris Wheel, and “cooking” elaborate  meals in complete absence of electrical appliances.  In fact, I’ve heard the phrase “I want toy” so many times that I actually began to worry that I might accidentally use it in polite company myself.

The benefits of play are well known and cataloged. Play allows children to use creativity and develop imagination. It facilitates cognition, physical and emotional development, language, and literacy.  Play is great!  However, not every culture values play as much as the Westerners do.

Cultural values affect how children play. Thus play interactions vary significantly across cultures. For instance, many Asian cultures prize education over play, so in these cultures children may engage in educational play activities vs. pretend play activities. To illustrate, Farver and colleagues have found that Korean preschool children engaged in greater parallel play (vs. pretend play), initiated play less frequently, as well as had less frequent social play episodes in contrast to Anglo-American peers. (Farver, Kim & Lee, 1995; Farver and Shinn 1997)

To continue, cultures focused on individualism stress independence and self-reliance.  In such cultures, babies and toddlers are taught to be self sufficient when it comes to sleeping, feeding, dressing, grooming and playing from a very early age. (Schulze, Harwood, and Schoelmerich, 2001) Consequently, in these cultures parents would generally support and encourage child initiated and directed play. However, in many Latin American cultures, parents expect their children to master self-care abilities and function independently at later ages.  Play in these cultures may be more parent directed vs. child directed.   These children may receive more explicit directives from their caregivers with respect to how to act and speak and be more physically positioned or restrained during play. (Harwood, Schoelmerich, & Schulze, 2000)

In Western culture, early choice making is praised and encouraged.  In contrast, traditional collective cultures encourage child obedience and respect over independence (Johnston & Wong, 2002).  Choice making may not be as encouraged since it might seem like it’s giving the child too much power.  It would not be uncommon for a child to be given a toy to play with which is deemed suitable for him/her, instead of being asked to choose.   The children in these cultures may not be encouraged to narrate on their actions during play but expected to play quietly with their toy.  Furthermore, if the parents do not consider play as an activity beneficial to their child’s cognitive and emotional development, but treat it as a leisure activity that helps pass the time, they may not ask the child questions regarding what he/she are doing and will not expect the child to narrate on their actions during play.

Consequently, in our assessments, it is very important to keep in mind that children’s play is affected by a number of variables including: cultural values, family relationships, child rearing practices, toy familiarity as well as developmental expectations (Hwa-Froelich, 2004).  As such, in order to conduct balanced and objective play assessments, we as clinicians need to find a few moments in our busy schedules to interview the caregivers regarding their views on child rearing practices and play interactions, so we could objectively interpret our assessment findings (e.g.,  is it delay/disorder or lack of  exposure and task unfamiliarity).

References:

  •  Farver, J. M., Kim, Y. K., & Lee, Y. (1995). Cultural differences in Korean- and Anglo-American preschoolers’ social interaction and play behaviors. Child Development, 66, 1088- 1099.
  • Farver, J. M., & Shinn, Y. L. (1997). Social pretend play in Korean- and Anglo- American pre-schoolers. Child Development,68 (3), 544-556.
  • Johnston, J.R., & Wong, M.-Y. A. (2002). Cultural differences in beliefs and practices concerning talk to children . Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45 (5), 916-926
  • Harwood, R. L., & Schoelmerich, A and Schulze, P. A. (2000) Homogeneity and heterogeneity in cultural belief systems. New Directions for Child and Adolescent Development 87,  41-57
  • Hwa-Froelich, D. A. (2004). Play Assessment for Children from Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Backgrounds. Perspectives on Language, Learning and Education and on Communication Disorders and Sciences in Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Populations, 11(2), 6-10.
  • Hwa-Froelich, D. A., & Vigil, D. C. (2004). Three aspects of cultural influence on communication: A literature review. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 25(3),110-118.
  • Schulze, P. A., Harwood, R. L., & Schoelmerich, A. (2001). Feeding practices and expectations among middle-class Anglo and Puerto Rican mothers of 12-month-old infants. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(4), 397–406.
Posted on by — Leave a comment

Upcoming New Jersey Speech Language and Hearing Convention 2012 Presentations

Tatyana Elleseff MA CCC-SLP will be giving 2 presentations at the NJSHA 2012 Convention on April 19-20, 2012

1. Presentation Title:     Behavior Management Strategies for School Based Speech Language Pathologists

Time:                         Thursday, April 19                8:15 AM – 10:15 AM

Summary: In recent years more and more school based speech-language pathologists have to work with children who present with behavioral deficits in conjunction to speech-language delays/impairments. A significant portion of work with these children in therapy sessions involves successful management of inappropriate behaviors such as excessive inattention, hyperactivity, aggression, opposition/non-compliance and/or apathy, which interferes with successful objective completion and goal attainment. This workshop will explain what type of common challenging behaviors can manifest in children with select communication, psychiatric, and neurological disorders.  It will outline behavior management strategy hierarchy from most to least intrusive methods for students with differing levels of cognitive functioning (high-average IQ to varying levels of MR). It will list positive proactive behavior management strategies to: prevent inappropriate behaviors from occurring, increase students’ session participation as well as improve compliance and cooperation during therapy sessions.

2. Presentation Title:     Social Pragmatic Assessment of Children Diagnosed with Emotional/Psychiatric Disturbances in the Schools

Time:                         Thursday, April 19              10:45 AM – 12:45 PM

Summary:  The number of children who present with non-spectrum emotional, behavioral, and psychiatric disturbances (oppositional defiant disorder, reactive attachment disorder, mood disorder, etc) has been steadily increasing in recent years. Many of these children attend district schools and due to high incidence of communication issues associated with these conditions, speech language pathologists are frequently included on the team of professionals who treat them.   This workshop is aimed at increasing the participants knowledge regarding aspects of social pragmatic language.  —By the end of the workshop participants will be able to list common pediatric psychiatric diagnoses, explain the impact of psychiatric disturbances on language development of children, summarize the role of SLP in assessment of pragmatic language and social cognitive abilities of school-age children, as well as utilize formal and informal assessment instruments to assess pragmatic language and social cognitive abilities of school age children.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

My new article was published in January 2012 issue of Adoption Today Magazine

My article entitled: Speech Language Strategies for Multisensory Stimulation of Internationally Adopted Children has been published in the January 2012 Issue of Adoption Today Magazine

Summary:  The article introduces the concept of multisensory stimulation and explains its benefits for internationally adopted children of all ages.  It also provides suggestions for parents and professionals on how to implement multisensory strategies in a variety of educational activities in order to stimulate interest, increase task participation as well as facilitate concept retention.

References:

Doman, G & Wilkinson, R (1993) The effects of intense multi-sensory stimulation on coma arousal and recovery. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation. 3 (2): 203-212.

Johnson, D. E et al (1992) The health of children adopted from Romania. Journal of the American Medical Association. 268(24): 3446-3450

Ti, K, Shin YH, & White-Traut, RC (2003), Multisensory intervention improves physical growth and illness rates in Korean orphaned newborn infants. Research in Nursing Health.  26 (6): 424-33.

Milev et al (2008) Multisensory Stimulation for Elderly With Dementia: A 24-Week Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Pilot Study. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias. 23 (4): 372-376.

Tarullo, A & Gunnar, M (2006). Child Maltreatment and Developing HPA Axis. Hormones and Behavior 50, 632-639.

White Traut (1999) Developmental Intervention for Preterm Infants Diagnosed with Periventricular Leukomalacia. Research in Nursing Health.  22: 131-143.

White Traut et al (2009) Salivary Cortisol and Behavioral State Responses of Healthy Newborn Infants to Tactile-Only and Multisensory Interventions. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing. 38(1): 22–34

 Resources:

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Advance Magazine Online Article Publication

“The importance of thorough pediatric orofacial assessments in speech pathology: It’s not just for speech sounds anymore” will be published in the online edition of Advance for Speech Language Pathologists and Audiologists  on November 16, 2011.

Article Summary: This article explains the importance of documenting orofacial assessment findings for multidisciplinary referral and diagnosis purposes.  It offers several personal clinical case examples of atypical orofacial findings, which let to subsequent medical diagnosis of neurological and genetic disorders. It also explains why in some select circumstances, SLP’s may be the first professionals to observe/record atypical findings.

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Speech-Language Activity Suggestions for Multisensory Stimulation of At-Risk Children

In recent years the percentage of “at-risk children” has been steadily increasing across pediatric speech-language pathology caseloads.  These include adopted and foster care children, medically fragile children (e.g., failure to thrive), abused and neglected children, children from low socioeconomic backgrounds or any children who for any reason lack the adequate support system to encourage them to function optimally socially, emotionally, intellectually, or physically.

At times speech-language pathologists encounter barriers when working with this population, which include low motivation, inconsistent knowledge retention, as well as halting or labored progress in therapy.

As a speech-language pathologist whose caseload consists entirely of at-children, I have spent countless of hours on attempting to enhance service delivery for my clients. One method that I have found to be highly effective for greater knowledge retention as well as for increasing the kids’ motivation is incorporating multisensory stimulation in speech and language activities.

To date, a number of studies have described the advantages of multisensory stimulation for various at risk populations. For example, in 2003 a study published in Journal of Research in Nursing and Health described the advantages of multisensory stimulation for 2 week old Korean orphans who received auditory, tactile, and visual stimulation twice a day, 5 days a week, for 4 weeks. This resulted in significantly fewer illnesses as well as significant gains in weight, length and head circumference, after the 4-week intervention period and at 6 months of age. Another 2009 study by White Traut and colleagues published in the Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing, found that multi sensory stimulation consisting of auditory, tactile, visual, and vestibular intervention contributed to a reduction of infant stress reactivity (steady decline in cortisol levels).   Moreover, multisensory stimulation is not just beneficial for young children. Other studies found benefits of multisensory stimulation for dementia (Milev et al, 2008) and coma patients (Doman & Wilkinson, 1993), indicating the usefulness of multisensory stimulation for a variety of at risk populations of different age groups.

After reviewing some studies and successfully implementing a number of strategies I wanted to share with you some of my favorite multisensory activities for different age-groups.

Before initiating any activities please remember to obtain parental permissions as well as a clearance from the occupational therapist (if the child is receiving related services), particularly if the child presents with significant sensory issues.  It is also very important to ensure that there are no food allergies, or nutritional restrictions, especially when it comes to working with new and unfamiliar clients on your caseload.

Multisensory stimulation for young children does not have to involve stimulation of all the senses at once. However, there are a number of activities which come quite close, especially when one combines “touch ‘n’ feel” books, musical puzzles as well as paper and edible crafts.

Here’s one of my favorite speech language therapy session activities for children 2-4 years of age. I use a board book called Percival Touch ‘n’ Feel Book to teach insect and animal related vocabulary words as well as talk about adjectives describing textures (furry, smooth, bumpy, sticky, etc).  As I help the children navigate the book, they get to touch the pages and talk about various plant and animals parts such as furry caterpillar dots, shiny flower petals, bumpy frog skin, or sticky spider web.   We also work on appropriately producing multisyllabic words and on combining the words into short sentences, depending of course, on the child’s age, skills, and abilities.   With this activity I often use animal and insect musical puzzles so the children can hear and then imitate select animal and insect noises.

Also, since all of Percival’s friends are garden insects and animals, it’s fairly easy to turn the book characters into paper crafts. Color paper templates are available from free websites such as www.dltk-kids.com, and range in complexity based on the child’s age (e.g., 2+, 3+ etc).  While looking innocuously like simple paper cutouts, in reality these crafts are a linguistic treasure trove and can be used for teaching simple and complex directions (e.g., after you glue the frog’s arm, glue on his foot) as well as prepositional concepts (e.g., glue the eyes on top of the head; glue the mouth below the nose, etc).

So far we have combined the tactile with the auditory and the visual but we are still missing the stimulation of a few other senses such as the olfactory and the gustatory.  For these we need a bit more creativity, and that’s where edible crafts come in (inspired by Janell Cannon’s ‘Crickwing’).  The child and I begin by constructing and gluing together a large paper flower and dabbing it’s petals with various food extracts (almond, vanilla, raspberry, lemon, root beer, banana, cherry, coconut, etc).  Then, using the paper flower as a model, we make an edible flower using various foods.  Pretzel sticks serve as stems, snap peas become leaves while mango, tomato, apple, peach and orange slices can serve as petals.  After our food craft is finished the child (and all other therapy participants) are encouraged to take it apart and eat it.  The edible flower is not just useful to stimulate the visual, tactile, gustatory, and olfactory senses but it also encourages picky eaters to trial new foods with a variety of textures and tastes, as well as serves to develop symbolic play and early abstract thinking skills.

It is also important to emphasize that multisensory activities are not just for younger children; they can be useful for school-age children as well (including middle school and high school aged kids). In the past, I have incorporated multisensory activities into thematic language and vocabulary units for older children (see resources below) while working on the topics such as the senses (e.g., edible tasting plate), nutrition (e.g., edible food pyramid), the human body (e.g., computer games such as whack a bone by anatomy arcade), or even biology (building plant and animal cell structures out of jello and candy). From my personal clinical experience I have noticed that when I utilized the multisensory approach to learning vs. auditory and visual approaches alone (such as paper based or computer based tasks only), the children evidenced greater task participation, were able to understand the material much faster and were still able to recall learned information appropriately several therapy sessions later.

I find multisensory stimulation to be a fun and interactive way to increase the child’s learning potential, decrease stress levels, as well as increase retention of relevant concepts.  Try it and let me know how it works for you!

 References:

·         Doman, G & Wilkinson, R (1993) The effects of intense multi-sensory stimulation on coma arousal and recovery. Neuropsychological Rehabilitation. 3 (2): 203-212.

·         Ti, K, Shin YH, & White-Traut, RC (2003), Multisensory intervention improves physical growth and illness rates in Korean orphaned newborn infants. Research in Nursing Health.  26 (6): 424-33.

·         Milev et al (2008) Multisensory Stimulation for Elderly With Dementia: A 24-Week Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Pilot Study. American Journal of Alzheimer’s Disease and Other Dementias. 23 (4): 372-376.

·         Tarullo, A & Gunnar, M (2006). Child Maltreatment and Developing HPA Axis. Hormones and Behavior 50, 632-639.

  • White Traut (1999) Developmental Intervention for Preterm Infants Diagnosed with Periventricular Leukomalacia. Research in Nursing Health.  22: 131-143.

·         White Traut et al (2009) Salivary Cortisol and Behavioral State Responses of Healthy Newborn Infants to Tactile-Only and Multisensory Interventions. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic, & Neonatal Nursing. 38(1): 22–34

 Resources:

Posted on by — Leave a comment

Dept of Children & Families / NJ Task Force on Child Abuse & Neglect Presentation

 

 

 

 

October 21, 2011: East Brunswick NJ

The Department of Children and Families and the New Jersey Task Force on Child Abuse and Neglect  had a  statewide child maltreatment prevention conference today and I had great fun doing today’s presentation:

“Differential Diagnosis of Inattention, Hyperactivity and Impulsivity in At-Risk Children” with our clinical team, Alla Gordina, MD, FAAP and Lydia Shifrin, LCSW.

We had a terrific crowd, who asked great questions and gave excellent feedback.

Presentation Highlights:

Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder is one of the most common and  the most controversial neurobehavioral disorders in children diagnosed today

Core symptoms of ADHD include  Inattention, Impulsivity and Hyperactivity

Some ADHD statistics:

  • Approximately 9.5% or 5.4 million children 4-17 years of age have ever been diagnosed with ADHD, as of 2007.
  • The percentage of children with a parent-reported ADHD diagnosis increased by 22% between 2003 and 2007.
  • Rates of ADHD diagnosis increased an average of 3% per year from 1997 to 2006 and an average of 5.5% per year from 2003 to 2007.
  • Boys (13.2%) were more likely than girls (5.6%) to have ever been diagnosed with ADHD.
  • The highest rates of parent-reported ADHD diagnosis were noted among children covered by Medicaid and multiracial children.

However,  numerous medical, psychiatric, neurological, psychological, speech-language and other disorders are frequently misdiagnosed as ADHD

NEARLY 1 MILLION CHILDREN ARE MISDIAGNOSED WITH ADHD

“Since ADHD is an underlying neurological problem where incidence rates should not change dramatically from one birth date to the next, these results suggest that age relative to peers in class, and the resulting differences in behavior, directly affects a child’s probability of being diagnosed with and treated for ADHD.”  (Elder, 2010). Journal of Health Economics

 

Disorders frequently misdiagnosed as AD/HD :

  • Respiratory Disorders (e.g., adenoid hypertrophy, asthma, allergic rhinitis)
  • Metabolic /Endocrine Disorders (e.g.,  diabetes, hypo/hyperthyroidism)
  • Hematological Disorders  (e.g., anemia)
  • Immunological Disorders (acquired and congenital immune problems)
  • Cardiac Disorders (e.g., congenital and acquired heart disease, syncopy)
  • Digestive  Disorders (e.g., irritable bowel syndrome, GERD, etc)
  • Neurological Disorders  (e.g., Traumatic Brain Injuries, Tumors, Encephalopathy, etc)
  • Sleep Disorders
  • Genetic Disorders (e.g., FASD, Fragile X Syndrome)
  • Toxin Exposure (e.g., Lead, Mercury, Drug Exposure)
  • Infections and Infestations (e.g., yeast overgrowth , intestinal worms/parasites)
  • Mental Health Disorders (e.g., anxiety, mood disorders, adjustment disorders)
  • Mental Retardation
  • Sensory Processing Disorders (vision, hearing, auditory, tactile)
  • Language Processing Disorders
  • Auditory processing Disorders

My presentation focused on explaining that having select language based difficulties can cause the child to act as inattentive, hyperactive and impulsive without actually having ADHD

My examples included:

  • Traumatic Brain Injury
  • Severe Language Delay
  • Auditory Processing Disorders
  • Social Pragmatic Language Deficits

Relevance and Implications for Adoption Professionals:

  • Multidisciplinary approach to identification, differential diagnosis, and management of disorders with “AD/HD” symptoms is NEEDED
  • One individual assessment (e.g.,  psychological) CANNOT reliably determine accurate diagnosis, especially when the diagnostic criteria is based on generalized symptomology
  • Refer adopted children with behavioral, listening, sensory, and any unusual deficits for multidisciplinary assessments which include in depth assessment of language abilities before making a conclusive diagnosis
  • Children who receive one assessment ONLY are at risk of misdiagnosis, misidentification, and are delayed in getting appropriate intervention services
Posted on by — Leave a comment

AAP: Council on Foster Care, Adoption and Kinship Care Presentation

Boston MA- First conference of the Fall 2011 season:

October 17, 2011: Got to co-present with my favorite pediatrician (Alla Gordina, MD, FAAP) an interesting clinical case in front of American Academy Of Pediatrics: Council on Foster Care, Adoption and Kinship Care. Granted my part was via phone and connection wasn’t great but it so nice to see medical professionals being interested in ancillary professionals’ perspective on issues of internationally adopted children.

Presentation Title: A Case of Isolated Social Pragmatic Language Deficits in an Internationally Adopted Child

Presentation Highlights:

Language based deficits may affect internationally adopted children many years post adoption

Even children adopted at very young ages can present with subtle BUT significant delays in select areas of functioning (see below)

One such delay may be in the area of social pragmatic functioning  or the use of language

Select examples of social pragmatic deficits include:

  • Impaired ability to appropriately interpret social situations, events and contexts
  • Impaired ability to create and convey messages to different audiences (adults vs. children)
  • Impaired ability to interpret facial expressions, body language and gestures
  • Difficulty labeling and identifying basic emotions of self and others
  • Poor or absent perspective taking (understanding thoughts and feelings of others)
  • Inappropriate initiation of social interactions (e.g., not knowing how to start a conversation or appropriately interrupt a game)
  • Comprehension of age-level abstract and inferential information (stories, sarcasm, figurative language, etc)
  • Missing “the big picture” (integrating ideas into a whole, synthesizing and summarizing information)
  • Poor connection and relatedness to peers

Implications for Professionals:

Very easy to misdiagnose a child with social pragmatic deficits as someone with psychiatric disturbances (e.g., ADHD or Autism) without multidisciplinary differential diagnosis

“Low risk referrals” do carry a significant risk of deprivation-related issues, which can surface years after adoption

Internationally adopted children with behavioral, listening, sensory, and any unusual deficits need a differential  diagnosis (including assessment of language abilities before a conclusive diagnosis is made)

Posted on by — 4 Comments

Understanding the extent of speech and language delays in older internationally adopted children: Implications for School Based Speech and Language Intervention.

Understanding the extent of speech and language delays in older internationally adopted children: Implications for School Based Speech and Language Intervention.

Tatyana Elleseff MA CCC-SLP

 

Note: This article was first published in October 2011 Issue of Adoption Today Magazine (pp. 32-35) http://www.adoptinfo.net/catalog_g111.html?catId=55347

 According to US State Department statistics, over 11,000 children were adopted internationally in the year 2010, with 2,803 of those children being school-aged (between 5-17 years old). Despite a staggering 50% decline in overall inter-country adoptions in the last 10 years, statistics on adoption of older children continue to remain steady (appropriately 3,000 older children were adopted each year, for the past decade). (Retrieved from http://adoption.state.gov/about_us/statistics.php Jul 29, 2011).

 Subsequent to the school aged child’s arrival to US, one of the first considerations that arises, secondary to health concerns and transitional adjustments, is the issue of schooling and appropriate school based services provision. In contrast to children adopted at younger ages, who typically have an opportunity to acquire some English language skills before an academic placement takes place, older international adoptees lack this luxury. Unfortunately, due to their unique linguistic status, many school districts are at a loss regarding best services options for these children.

 Despite the prevalence of available research on this subject, one myth that continues to persist is that older internationally adopted children are “bilingual” and as such should receive remedial services similar to those received by newly entering the country bilingual children (e.g., ESL classes).

 It is very important to understand that most internationally adopted children rapidly lose their birth language, sometimes in as little as several months post arrival (Gindis, 2005), since they are often adopted by parents who do not speak the child’s first language and as such are unable/unwilling to maintain it. Not only are these children not bilingual, they are also not ‘truly’ monolingual, since their first language is lost rather rapidly, while their second language has been gained minimally at the time of loss. Moreover, even during the transition period during which international adoptees are rapidly losing their native language, their birth language is still of no use to them, since it’s not functional in their monolingual, English speaking only, home and school environments. As a result of the above constraints, select researchers have referred to this pattern of language gain, as “second, first language acquisition” (e.g., Roberts, et al., 2005), since the child is acquiring his/her new language literally from scratch.

 This brings me to another myth, that given several years of immersion in a new language rich, home and school environments, most internationally adopted children with (mild) language delays will catch up to their non-adopted monolingual peers academically, without the benefit of any additional services.

 This concept requires clarification, since the majority of parents adopting older children, often have difficulty understanding the extent of their child’s speech and language abilities in their native language at the time of adoption, and the implications for new language transference.

 Research on speech language abilities of older internationally adopted children is still rather limited, despite available studies to date. Some studies (e.g., Glennen & Masters, 2002; Krakow & Roberts, 2003, etc) suggest that age of adoption is strongly correlated with language outcomes. In other words, older internationally adopted children are at risk of having poorer language outcomes than children adopted at younger ages. That is because the longer the child stays in an institutional environment the greater is the risk of a birth language delay. Children in institutional care frequently experience neglect, lack of language stimulation, lack of appropriate play experiences, lack of enriched community activities, as well as inadequate learning settings all of which have long lasting negative impact on their language development. It is also important to understand that language delays in birth language transfer and become language delays in a new language. These delays will typically continue to persist unless appropriate intervention, in the form of speech language services, is provided.

So what are the options available to parents adopting older school age children with respect to determination of their child’s speech and language abilities?

For starters, at the time of adoption, it is very important to gain as much information regarding their child’s birth language abilities (and academic abilities, when applicable) as possible. In many older children (3+ years of age), speech and language delays in birth language (e.g., sound and word mispronunciations, limited vocabulary, grammatical errors, inability to answer simple or abstract questions, short sentence length) can be easily determined based on orphanage staff interviews, observations, and/or review of documentation included in the adoption record. In the Russian Federation, for example, speech language pathologists are assigned to orphanages, so when working with older international adoptees from the Russian Federation, one often finds a short statement in adoption records stating that the child presented with a speech and language delay for which he was receiving services.

If possible, prior to adoption, parents may wish to explore the option of obtaining an independent comprehensive speech language evaluation of the child’s birth language abilities, while the child is still located in the birth country. The above may be significant for a number of reasons. Firstly, it will allow the parents to understand the extent of the child’s language delay in their birth tongue. Secondly, it will increase the parents’ chances of obtaining school based remediation services for their child once they arrive to US.

In the absence of qualified speech pathologists attached to the orphanage or conclusive interviews with medical professionals, paraprofessionals, and teachers (lack of availability, language barrier, time constraints, etc) regarding the child’s speech and language development, it will be very helpful for parents to videotape the child during speaking tasks. Most parents who request pre-adoption consultations are well familiar with videotaping, requested by various pre-adoption professionals (pediatricians, psychologists, etc) in order to review the child’s presenting appearance, fine and gross motor skills, behavior and social skills as well as other areas of functioning. Language video samples should focus on child’s engagement in literacy tasks such as reading a book aloud (if sufficiently literate), and on speaking activities such as telling a story, recalling an episode from daily life or a conversation with familiar person. In the absence of all other data, these samples can later be analyzed and interpreted in order to determine if speech language deficits are present. (Glennen, 2009)

Parents need to understand that internationally adopted children can often be denied special education services in the absence of appropriate documentation. Such denials are often based on misinterpretation of the current IDEA 2004 law. Some denials may be based on the fact that once these children arrive to US, it is very difficult to find a qualified speech language pathologist who can assess the child in their birth language, especially if it’s a less commonly spoken language such as Amharic, Kazakh, or Ukrainian. Additionally, schools may refuse to test internationally adopted children for several years post arrival, on the grounds that these children have yet to attain “adequate language abilities in English” and as such, the testing results will be biased/inadequate, since testing was not standardized on children with similar linguistic abilities. Furthermore, even if the school administers appropriate testing protocols and finds the child’s abilities impaired, testing results may still be dismissed as inaccurate due to the child’s perceived limited English exposure.

Contrastingly, a speech and language report in the child’s birth language will outline the nature and severity of disorder, and state that given the extent of the child’s deficits in his/her birth language, similar pattern will be experienced in English unless intervention is provided. According to one of the leading speech-language researchers, Sharon Glennen, “Any child with a known history of speech and language delays in the sending country should be considered to have true delays or disorders and should receive speech and language services after adoption.” (Glennen, 2009, p.52)

To continue, some options in locating a speech pathologist in the child’s birth country include consulting with the adoption agency or the local pediatrician, who is providing medical clearance for the child. However, it is very important that the speech language pathologist be licensed and reputable, as unqualified professionals will not be able to make appropriate diagnostic interpretations and suggestions, and may provide erroneous information to the parent.

If the parents are unable to obtain the relevant report in the child’s birth country, the next viable option is to obtain a comprehensive speech language assessment upon arrival to US, from a qualified professional who is well versed in both: the child’s native language as well as speech and language issues unique to assessment of internationally adopted children. Please note that the window of opportunity to assess the school age child in his/her native language is very narrow, as birth language attrition occurs within literally a matter of several months post adoption and is more rapid in children with delayed and disordered speech and language abilities (Gindis, 1999, 2005, 2008).

If the presence of a speech language delay has been confirmed (e.g., documented in adoption paperwork, interpreted through video samples, supported by a psycho-educational assessment, etc) the next step is to request the relevant speech language services for your child through the school system. Typically school administration will ask you to produce such a request in writing. One such letter template is available through the Post Adoption Learning Center (see link below). This template, complete with relevant references, can be modified to each child’s unique circumstances, and submitted along with supporting paperwork (e.g., speech-language, psycho-educational reports) and available video samples. In cases of services denials, an educational attorney specializing in educational policy relevant to international adoptions may need be consulted.

Once the child is qualified for appropriate speech language services in the school system it is also important to understand that language acquisition occurs in a progression, with social language (CLF) preceding cognitive language (CLM) (Gindis, 1999). Communicative Language Fluency (CLF) is language used in social situations for day-to-day social interactions. These skills are used to interact at home, on the playground, in the lunch room, on the school bus, at parties, playing sports and talking on the telephone. Social interactions are usually context embedded. Because they occur in meaningful social contexts they are typically not very demanding cognitively and the language required is not specialized. These language skills usually emerge in internationally adopted children as early as several months post adoption. Once these abilities emerge and solidify it is very important for speech language pathologists not to dismiss the child from services but to continue the treatment and focus it in the realm of cognitive/ academic language.

Cognitive Language Mastery (CLM) refers to language needed for formal academic learning. This includes listening, speaking, reading, and writing about subject area content material including analyzing, synthesizing, judging and evaluating presented information. This level of language learning is essential for a child to succeed in school. Language impaired children adopted at older ages need time and support to become develop cognitive language and become proficient in academic areas, an ability which usually takes a number of years to refine. Before discharging the child from therapy services it is very important that their cognitive/academic language abilities are assessed and are found within average limits.

Understanding the extent of speech language delay in internationally adopted older children AND factors pertaining to appropriate remediation are crucial for delivery of relevant (and meaningful to the child) speech language services as well as ensuring their continued academic success in school setting.

References:

• Gindis, B. (1999) Language-Related Issues for International Adoptees and Adoptive Families. In: T. Tepper, L. Hannon, D. Sandstrom, Eds. “International Adoption: Challenges and Opportunities.” PNPIC, Meadow Lands , PA. , pp. 98-108

• Gindis, B. (2005). Cognitive, language, and educational issues of children adopted from overseas orphanages. Journal of Cognitive Education and Psychology, 4 (3): 290-315.

• Gindis (2008) Abrupt Native Language Loss in International Adoptees Advance for Speech/Language Pathologists and Audiologists Dec 22.

• Glennen, S. & Masters, G. (2002). Typical and atypical language development in infants and toddlers adopted from Eastern Europe. American Journal of Speech-LanguagePathology, 44, 417-433

• Glennen, S., & Bright, B. J. (2005). Five years later: Language in school-age internationally adopted children. Seminars in Speech and Language, 26, 86-101.

• .Glennen, S (2009) Speech and Language Guidelines for Children Adopted from Abroad at Older Ages. Topics in language Disorders 29, 50-64.

• Intercountry Adoption Bureau of Consular Affairs US Department of State Retrieved on Jul 29, 2011 from http://adoption.state.gov/about_us/statistics.php

• Krakow, R. A., & Roberts, J. (2003). Acquisitions of English vocabulary by young Chinese adoptees. Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 1, 169-176.

• Muchnik, M. How to request speech/language services for your child. Retrieved on Aug 2, 2011 from http://www.bgcenterschool.org/FreePresentations/P8-Speech-language-support.shtml

• Roberts, et al, (2005). Language development in preschool-aged children adopted from China. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 48, 93-107.

Bio: Tatyana Elleseff MA CCC-SLP is a bilingual speech language pathologist with a full-time affiliation with University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey and a private practice in Somerset, NJ. She received her Master’s Degree from New York University and her Bilingual Extension Certification from Columbia University. Currently she is licensed by the states of New Jersey and New York and holds a Certificate of Clinical Competence from American Speech Language and Hearing Association. She specializes in working with bilingual, multicultural, internationally and domestically adopted at risk children with complex medical, developmental, neurogenic, psychogenic, and acquired communication disorders. For more information about her services call 917-916-7487 or visit her website: www.smartspeechtherapy.com

Cite as: Elleseff, Tatyana (2011, October) Understanding the extent of speech and language delays in older internationally adopted children: Implications for School Based Speech and Language Intervention. Adoption Today.