Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 36 – uploaded by Neeltje Van den Bedem

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001; For some models a better model fit was found, whereas the added predictor was not significant after bootstrapping. This was the case for: reactive aggression: positive relation with pragmatic problems in children with DLD, but not in children without DLD (model 15), and positive contribution of CAM in addition to ACS*diagnosis (model 16); proactive aggression: negative relation with PIQ in children without DLD, but not in children with DLD (model 5) and positive relation with mean anger dysregulation in both groups (model 10); ODD symptoms: a positive relation with GCS in both groups (model 12). Externalizing problems and emotional competence aggression: positive relation with pragmatic problems in children with DLD, but not in children

Table 36 Note. *p < .05, **p < .01, ***p < .001; For some models a better model fit was found, whereas the added predictor was not significant after bootstrapping. This was the case for: reactive aggression: positive relation with pragmatic problems in children with DLD, but not in children without DLD (model 15), and positive contribution of CAM in addition to ACS*diagnosis (model 16); proactive aggression: negative relation with PIQ in children without DLD, but not in children with DLD (model 5) and positive relation with mean anger dysregulation in both groups (model 10); ODD symptoms: a positive relation with GCS in both groups (model 12). Externalizing problems and emotional competence aggression: positive relation with pragmatic problems in children with DLD, but not in children

Related Figures (56)

development of psychosocial problems of children with DLD. As is illustrated in Figure 1, language problems of children with DLD might not have a direct effect on the development of psychosocial problems, but interfere with the social interactions of children with DLD instead, which negatively effects children’s social learning opportunities, resulting in less emotional competence. Problems in emotional competence in turn put children at risk for the development of increased psychosocial problems.
development of psychosocial problems of children with DLD. As is illustrated in Figure 1, language problems of children with DLD might not have a direct effect on the development of psychosocial problems, but interfere with the social interactions of children with DLD instead, which negatively effects children’s social learning opportunities, resulting in less emotional competence. Problems in emotional competence in turn put children at risk for the development of increased psychosocial problems.
attention in interventions in addition to language. ee eee eee eee ee ee eee ee eee ee eee eee Second, a longitudinal design was used in order to compare the development across time of children with and without DLD. Therefore, children with and without DLD between 8 and 16 years old were followed across 18 months. The children and their parents filled out questionnaires three times, with 9 months in between each measurement. We chose this age range, because social and hormonal changes during this age range make children increasingly sensitive to the opinions of their peers. At the same time, children try to become independent and develop their identity (Crone & Dahl, 2012). This makes this an important developmental area where children become more vulnerable to the development of psychosocial problems (Dahl & Gunnar, 2009).
attention in interventions in addition to language. ee eee eee eee ee ee eee ee eee ee eee eee Second, a longitudinal design was used in order to compare the development across time of children with and without DLD. Therefore, children with and without DLD between 8 and 16 years old were followed across 18 months. The children and their parents filled out questionnaires three times, with 9 months in between each measurement. We chose this age range, because social and hormonal changes during this age range make children increasingly sensitive to the opinions of their peers. At the same time, children try to become independent and develop their identity (Crone & Dahl, 2012). This makes this an important developmental area where children become more vulnerable to the development of psychosocial problems (Dahl & Gunnar, 2009).
Table 1 Characteristics of participants at Time | The youngsters without DLD were recruited through mainstream schools and were included when they had no diagnoses (including ADHD), no language problems as measured with two sub-tests of the CELF (Semantic Relations and Text Understanding), and PIQ within the normal range. The present study is part of a larger research project on the social and emotional development of children and adolescents who face less access to the social environment while growing up because of deafness, autism spectrum disorder, or DLD. Cross- sectional data of a subsample of the group without DLD has been reported before (Kouwenberg, Rieffe, & Theunissen, 2011; Rieffe et al., 2011).
Table 1 Characteristics of participants at Time | The youngsters without DLD were recruited through mainstream schools and were included when they had no diagnoses (including ADHD), no language problems as measured with two sub-tests of the CELF (Semantic Relations and Text Understanding), and PIQ within the normal range. The present study is part of a larger research project on the social and emotional development of children and adolescents who face less access to the social environment while growing up because of deafness, autism spectrum disorder, or DLD. Cross- sectional data of a subsample of the group without DLD has been reported before (Kouwenberg, Rieffe, & Theunissen, 2011; Rieffe et al., 2011).
Figure 1. Graphic representation of age at three time points and the level of victimization (1A), bullying (1B), understanding of one’s own emotions (1C), anger (1D), sadness (1E), and fear (1F). Every measurement is represented by a dot (without DLD), or a square (with DLD). The measurements of one participant are connected with lines. The graphic shows the predicted value of the variables based on the age and diagnosis of the participant.
Figure 1. Graphic representation of age at three time points and the level of victimization (1A), bullying (1B), understanding of one’s own emotions (1C), anger (1D), sadness (1E), and fear (1F). Every measurement is represented by a dot (without DLD), or a square (with DLD). The measurements of one participant are connected with lines. The graphic shows the predicted value of the variables based on the age and diagnosis of the participant.
Bullying/Victimization, and Understanding of one’s own Emotions (Mean and Change). lable 4 Goodness of fit (AIC) and regression weights with 95% CI for Multi- level models Understanding of one’s own Emotions were less likely to Bully their peers in both groups.
Bullying/Victimization, and Understanding of one’s own Emotions (Mean and Change). lable 4 Goodness of fit (AIC) and regression weights with 95% CI for Multi- level models Understanding of one’s own Emotions were less likely to Bully their peers in both groups.
Bullying/Victimization, and Anger, Sadness, and Fear (Mean and Change).
Bullying/Victimization, and Anger, Sadness, and Fear (Mean and Change).
both Pragmatic Problems and Emotional Competence. Table 6 Goodness of fit (AIC) and regression weights with 95% CI for regression models explaining the level of Victimization in youngsters with DLD with the control variables, Bullying, and the addition of Pragmatic Problems, the indices for Emotional Competence and both Pragmatic Problems and Emotional Competence.
both Pragmatic Problems and Emotional Competence. Table 6 Goodness of fit (AIC) and regression weights with 95% CI for regression models explaining the level of Victimization in youngsters with DLD with the control variables, Bullying, and the addition of Pragmatic Problems, the indices for Emotional Competence and both Pragmatic Problems and Emotional Competence.
S Appendix 1 Goodness of fit (AIC) and regression weights with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for Multi- level models explaining the level and development of Victimization, Bullying, and the indices for Emotional Competence. ‘gigi wmcecwoee:
S Appendix 1 Goodness of fit (AIC) and regression weights with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for Multi- level models explaining the level and development of Victimization, Bullying, and the indices for Emotional Competence. ‘gigi wmcecwoee:
Appendix 2 Goodness of fit (AIC) and regression weights with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for Multi- level models explaining Victimizatio and Bullying with Age, Neighborhood SES, Gender (Girls = 1), Diagnosis (DLD = 1) and Bullying/Victimization in Model 1, Understanding one own emotions in Model 2, and the interaction of Diagnosis x Understanding one’s own emotions in Model 3.
Appendix 2 Goodness of fit (AIC) and regression weights with 95% Confidence Intervals (CI) for Multi- level models explaining Victimizatio and Bullying with Age, Neighborhood SES, Gender (Girls = 1), Diagnosis (DLD = 1) and Bullying/Victimization in Model 1, Understanding one own emotions in Model 2, and the interaction of Diagnosis x Understanding one’s own emotions in Model 3.
Table 2 Psychometric properties of the questionnaires Empathy was examined with the Empathy Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents (EmQue-CA; Overgaauw et al., 2017). This questionnaire assesses affective empathy (e.g. If someone in my family is sad, I feel really bad), cognitive empathy (e.g. If a friend is angry, I tend to know why) and prosocial motivation (e.g. If a friend has an argument, I try to help; I want everyone to feel good). One item (I often feel sad when I watch a sad movie) was not
Table 2 Psychometric properties of the questionnaires Empathy was examined with the Empathy Questionnaire for Children and Adolescents (EmQue-CA; Overgaauw et al., 2017). This questionnaire assesses affective empathy (e.g. If someone in my family is sad, I feel really bad), cognitive empathy (e.g. If a friend is angry, I tend to know why) and prosocial motivation (e.g. If a friend has an argument, I try to help; I want everyone to feel good). One item (I often feel sad when I watch a sad movie) was not
Figure 1. Level of friendship quality (positive and negative) and empathy (affective, cognitive and prosocial motivation) of all participants on three time points (data points of one participant are connected with lines) with regression lines depicting the predicted value based on age and diagnosis with 95% CI’s.
Figure 1. Level of friendship quality (positive and negative) and empathy (affective, cognitive and prosocial motivation) of all participants on three time points (data points of one participant are connected with lines) with regression lines depicting the predicted value based on age and diagnosis with 95% CI’s.
Table 4 Pearson’s correlations for all study variables
Table 4 Pearson’s correlations for all study variables
lable 5 Regression weights with 95% CI with empathy scales predicting friendship quality Negative friendship features were associated with higher mean affective empathy, anc lower mean prosocial motivation, whereas cognitive empathy did not add to the prediction o: negative friendship features in either group. However, when we examined the continuity of the friendships of children the pattern changed (AIC without: -.54.9 and with continuity o! friendships: -62.4, X°(df): 11.8, p =.002; Table 6). Within—participant growth in cognitive empathy across time was related to decreasing levels of negative friendship features, but only in children who did not have the same best friend across time. In children with a best friend or two or three time points this relation was not significant (B: -.132 + .163 = .031). Note tha
lable 5 Regression weights with 95% CI with empathy scales predicting friendship quality Negative friendship features were associated with higher mean affective empathy, anc lower mean prosocial motivation, whereas cognitive empathy did not add to the prediction o: negative friendship features in either group. However, when we examined the continuity of the friendships of children the pattern changed (AIC without: -.54.9 and with continuity o! friendships: -62.4, X°(df): 11.8, p =.002; Table 6). Within—participant growth in cognitive empathy across time was related to decreasing levels of negative friendship features, but only in children who did not have the same best friend across time. In children with a best friend or two or three time points this relation was not significant (B: -.132 + .163 = .031). Note tha
predicting negative friendship features
predicting negative friendship features
Note. significant predictors are in bold. Table 7 Regression weights with 95%CI with friendship quality predicting empathy (model6) The influence of the severity of communication problems Finally, we examined whether the relations between empathy and friendship qualit would remain after controlling for the severity of communication problems of children witl and without DLD. We examined whether children with missing data from the paren questionnaire differed from children without missing data (61 without and 17 with DLD). I the group without DLD, children with missing data lived in lower SES neighbourhoods and hac lower PIQ (#(88.99) = 2.86, p = .005, d= .43, and #(175) = 3.50, p = .001, d= .63 respectively) In the group with DLD no differences were found. We reran the earlier analyses without th children with missing CCC-2 data, which did not change the patterns found. Wiest the canearal 2enacmmnniroehnan arcisiame cenre: :and ¢hoe tnteareacntinan mt Aieacnneid * diagnosis x empathy or friendship quality were added to the model (model 7). However, DLD
Note. significant predictors are in bold. Table 7 Regression weights with 95%CI with friendship quality predicting empathy (model6) The influence of the severity of communication problems Finally, we examined whether the relations between empathy and friendship qualit would remain after controlling for the severity of communication problems of children witl and without DLD. We examined whether children with missing data from the paren questionnaire differed from children without missing data (61 without and 17 with DLD). I the group without DLD, children with missing data lived in lower SES neighbourhoods and hac lower PIQ (#(88.99) = 2.86, p = .005, d= .43, and #(175) = 3.50, p = .001, d= .63 respectively) In the group with DLD no differences were found. We reran the earlier analyses without th children with missing CCC-2 data, which did not change the patterns found. Wiest the canearal 2enacmmnniroehnan arcisiame cenre: :and ¢hoe tnteareacntinan mt Aieacnneid * diagnosis x empathy or friendship quality were added to the model (model 7). However, DLD
Note. * p < .05, ** p< .01, *** p < .001; The interaction effects of gender x age x diagnosis in model 4 for negative friendship features, affective empathy and prosocial motivation were not significant after the bootstrap procedure.
Note. * p < .05, ** p< .01, *** p < .001; The interaction effects of gender x age x diagnosis in model 4 for negative friendship features, affective empathy and prosocial motivation were not significant after the bootstrap procedure.
Table 1 Characteristics of participants at Time |
Table 1 Characteristics of participants at Time |
Social anxiety, somatic complaints and emotional competence
Social anxiety, somatic complaints and emotional competence
Figure 1. Representation of the raw data for somatic complaints (A), social anxiety (B), happiness (C), Emotion understanding (D), and bodily unawareness of emotions (E). The regression lines represent the mean level in children with and without DLD across time with 95% CI
Figure 1. Representation of the raw data for somatic complaints (A), social anxiety (B), happiness (C), Emotion understanding (D), and bodily unawareness of emotions (E). The regression lines represent the mean level in children with and without DLD across time with 95% CI
Note. Significant regression weights are bold. happiness predicting somatic complaints and social anxiety
Note. Significant regression weights are bold. happiness predicting somatic complaints and social anxiety
Note. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 Supplementary Material Goodness of fit (AIC and log likelihood test) of the different models
Note. *p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001 Supplementary Material Goodness of fit (AIC and log likelihood test) of the different models
Table 1 Characteristics of participants at Time |
Table 1 Characteristics of participants at Time |
Table 2 Psychometric properties of the CCC-2 for children with DLD (n= 97) PIQ scores of children with DLD were obtained from school or medical files. Children vere tested with the Wechlers Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC, Kort et al., 2005), snijders-Oomen Non-verbal intelligence test (Tellegen & Laros, 2011), or Wechlers Non- Verbal test (Wechsler & Naglieri, 2008), which all give an indication of PIQ with a mean of 00 and SD of 15. When data were unavailable, which was the case for 11 children with DLD nd all children without DLD, two non-verbal subtests of the WISC (i.e., Block Design and icture Arrangement; Kort et al., 2005) were administered at Time 2. These two subtests are ighly correlated with full intelligence tests (r =.71, p <.001; Theunissen et al., 2011). Data vere missing for six (5.3%) children with DLD and 30 (14.0%) children without DLD, because hey did not participate at Time 2 or because parents did not give permission to obtain nfarmatioan
Table 2 Psychometric properties of the CCC-2 for children with DLD (n= 97) PIQ scores of children with DLD were obtained from school or medical files. Children vere tested with the Wechlers Intelligence Scale for Children (WISC, Kort et al., 2005), snijders-Oomen Non-verbal intelligence test (Tellegen & Laros, 2011), or Wechlers Non- Verbal test (Wechsler & Naglieri, 2008), which all give an indication of PIQ with a mean of 00 and SD of 15. When data were unavailable, which was the case for 11 children with DLD nd all children without DLD, two non-verbal subtests of the WISC (i.e., Block Design and icture Arrangement; Kort et al., 2005) were administered at Time 2. These two subtests are ighly correlated with full intelligence tests (r =.71, p <.001; Theunissen et al., 2011). Data vere missing for six (5.3%) children with DLD and 30 (14.0%) children without DLD, because hey did not participate at Time 2 or because parents did not give permission to obtain nfarmatioan
Figure 1. Depressive symptoms of participants with and without DLD. The measurements of one participant are connected with lines. The regression line represents the predicted value based on the age and diagnosis of the participant with 95% CI’s. Figure 1. Depressive symptoms of participants with and without DLD. The measurements of
Figure 1. Depressive symptoms of participants with and without DLD. The measurements of one participant are connected with lines. The regression line represents the predicted value based on the age and diagnosis of the participant with 95% CI’s. Figure 1. Depressive symptoms of participants with and without DLD. The measurements of
and the Mean and Change scores of all predictors, with significant predictors made bold. Table 5 shows the unique contribution of the ER strategies explaining the severity 0! depressive symptoms in children with and without DLD (See the Appendix for the correlations between all study variables at Time 1). Children in both groups reported lower levels o1 depressive symptoms when they reported higher mean levels of approach strategies, less worry. and less externalizing strategies. Higher mean levels of avoidant strategies also explained lowe1 levels of depressive symptoms, but when the other ER strategies were included in the model. this effect did not reach significance anymore. Additionally, increasing levels of avoidant strategies and decreasing levels of worry across the 18 months, explained decreasing levels of depressive symptoms across time within individuals. The change in externalizing strategies was not included in the final analysis, because it was not administered at Time 3. However, wher Table 5 Goodness of fit (AIC) and regression weights with 95% Confidence Intervals for a es ei, > ee 1 ee A, A 9 All ER strategies contributed to the prediction of the depressive symptoms in both groups (AIC without ER: -667.0, and with the addition of approach: -691.9***; avoidant: - 683.5***; worry; -753.8***; and externalizing: -705.3***). However, the addition of the interaction effects of diagnosis with one of the ER strategies did not provide better model fits (AIC with the interaction diagnosis and approach: -688.2; avoidant: -679,8; worry; -750.1; and externalizing: -704.5). This indicates that the strengths of the effects of the ER strategies on depressive symptoms did not differ between children with and without DLD.
and the Mean and Change scores of all predictors, with significant predictors made bold. Table 5 shows the unique contribution of the ER strategies explaining the severity 0! depressive symptoms in children with and without DLD (See the Appendix for the correlations between all study variables at Time 1). Children in both groups reported lower levels o1 depressive symptoms when they reported higher mean levels of approach strategies, less worry. and less externalizing strategies. Higher mean levels of avoidant strategies also explained lowe1 levels of depressive symptoms, but when the other ER strategies were included in the model. this effect did not reach significance anymore. Additionally, increasing levels of avoidant strategies and decreasing levels of worry across the 18 months, explained decreasing levels of depressive symptoms across time within individuals. The change in externalizing strategies was not included in the final analysis, because it was not administered at Time 3. However, wher Table 5 Goodness of fit (AIC) and regression weights with 95% Confidence Intervals for a es ei, > ee 1 ee A, A 9 All ER strategies contributed to the prediction of the depressive symptoms in both groups (AIC without ER: -667.0, and with the addition of approach: -691.9***; avoidant: - 683.5***; worry; -753.8***; and externalizing: -705.3***). However, the addition of the interaction effects of diagnosis with one of the ER strategies did not provide better model fits (AIC with the interaction diagnosis and approach: -688.2; avoidant: -679,8; worry; -750.1; and externalizing: -704.5). This indicates that the strengths of the effects of the ER strategies on depressive symptoms did not differ between children with and without DLD.
externalizing strategies, with significant predictors made bold. Approach and avoidant strategies of children with DLD were also not related to any of the CCC-2 scales. However, semantic problems were related to higher levels of worry (AJC without: 290.7, and with semantic problems: 285.0**; B = .07, 95% CI [.02 to .13]) and externalizing strategies (AJC without: 205.8, and with semantic problems: 201.6**, B = .05, 95% CI [.01 to .10]). Finally, more pragmatic problems contributed to the prediction of more externalizing strategies in children with DLD (4/C without: 205.8, and with pragmatic problems: 200.0**; B= .01 95% CT[.00 to .02]).
externalizing strategies, with significant predictors made bold. Approach and avoidant strategies of children with DLD were also not related to any of the CCC-2 scales. However, semantic problems were related to higher levels of worry (AJC without: 290.7, and with semantic problems: 285.0**; B = .07, 95% CI [.02 to .13]) and externalizing strategies (AJC without: 205.8, and with semantic problems: 201.6**, B = .05, 95% CI [.01 to .10]). Finally, more pragmatic problems contributed to the prediction of more externalizing strategies in children with DLD (4/C without: 205.8, and with pragmatic problems: 200.0**; B= .01 95% CT[.00 to .02]).
Appendix Pearson’s correlations between Time | variables (without DLD/DLD).
Appendix Pearson’s correlations between Time | variables (without DLD/DLD).
The third aim of the study was to examine whether problems in emotional competenc« mediated the relation between the severity of communication problems and externalizing problems in children with and without DLD. Because previous studies examining the relationships between communication problems and externalizing problems had mixed results we distinguished between different types of communication problems (St. Clair et al., 2011. Lindsay & Dockrell, 2012; Maggio et al., 2014). We examined relations with structural anc pragmatic communication problems, but also specifically whether children had difficultie: communicating about their own emotions with others (emotion communication problems; Way et al., 2010). We expected that communication problems would relate to more reactive externalizing problems, but that these relations would be mediated by problems in emotiona competence (Figure 1; Fields & Prinz, 1997; Salmon et al., 2016). Additionally, we expectec more proactive aggression in children with more communication problems (De Paula & Befi- Lopes, 2013; Fields & Prinz, 1997; Gallagher, 1999), but did not expect that emotional competence mediated this relation (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Rolfh et al., 2017).
The third aim of the study was to examine whether problems in emotional competenc« mediated the relation between the severity of communication problems and externalizing problems in children with and without DLD. Because previous studies examining the relationships between communication problems and externalizing problems had mixed results we distinguished between different types of communication problems (St. Clair et al., 2011. Lindsay & Dockrell, 2012; Maggio et al., 2014). We examined relations with structural anc pragmatic communication problems, but also specifically whether children had difficultie: communicating about their own emotions with others (emotion communication problems; Way et al., 2010). We expected that communication problems would relate to more reactive externalizing problems, but that these relations would be mediated by problems in emotiona competence (Figure 1; Fields & Prinz, 1997; Salmon et al., 2016). Additionally, we expectec more proactive aggression in children with more communication problems (De Paula & Befi- Lopes, 2013; Fields & Prinz, 1997; Gallagher, 1999), but did not expect that emotional competence mediated this relation (Crick & Dodge, 1996; Rolfh et al., 2017).
Table 1 Characteristics of participants at Time | for children with and without DLD education, occupation, and income of all adults of a neighborhood compared to the other
Table 1 Characteristics of participants at Time | for children with and without DLD education, occupation, and income of all adults of a neighborhood compared to the other
Table 2 Psychometric properties of the questionnaires. Note. N communication problems: Emotion: DLD = 87, without DLD = 151; general and pragmatic: DLD = 92, without DLD = 142.
Table 2 Psychometric properties of the questionnaires. Note. N communication problems: Emotion: DLD = 87, without DLD = 151; general and pragmatic: DLD = 92, without DLD = 142.
Note. Significant regression weights are bold. anger dysregulation predicting reactive externalizing problems Mediating role of emotional competence in the relation of communication problems and externalizing problems The third aim was to examine whether the relations between externalizing problems and communication problems were mediated by children’s emotional competence (Figure 1). First, we examined the direct path of communication problems to externalizing problems. We reran the best fitting models as described above excluding children with missing data on the CCC or CAM. Then the severity of communication problems (general [structural language and pragmatic scales combined], or pragmatic and emotion communication), as well as the interaction effects with diagnosis, were added to the model. 2 ¥ Sa: 1! wees oe ae ee eee peas cq: The third aim was to examine whether the relations between externalizing problems and iigher levels of reactive aggression, but not proactive aggression. Growth in emotional
Note. Significant regression weights are bold. anger dysregulation predicting reactive externalizing problems Mediating role of emotional competence in the relation of communication problems and externalizing problems The third aim was to examine whether the relations between externalizing problems and communication problems were mediated by children’s emotional competence (Figure 1). First, we examined the direct path of communication problems to externalizing problems. We reran the best fitting models as described above excluding children with missing data on the CCC or CAM. Then the severity of communication problems (general [structural language and pragmatic scales combined], or pragmatic and emotion communication), as well as the interaction effects with diagnosis, were added to the model. 2 ¥ Sa: 1! wees oe ae ee eee peas cq: The third aim was to examine whether the relations between externalizing problems and iigher levels of reactive aggression, but not proactive aggression. Growth in emotional
Appendix A Goodness of fit (AIC and log likelihood test) of the different models
Appendix A Goodness of fit (AIC and log likelihood test) of the different models
competence serves as a mediator in the relation. The final aim of this research project was to examine the relative effect of the severity of children’s communication problems of children with DLD and their emotional competence on the level of psychosocial problems. We expected that the level of emotional competence would mediate the relations between the severity of the communication problems of children with DLD and their psychosocial problems (Figure 1). As described above, the indices for smotional competence were related to the level of psychosocial problems (relation b in Figure |). Below we summarise the findings on the relations between the severity of communication sroblems with emotional competence (relation a) and with psychosocial problems (relation c), and with psychosocial problems after emotional competence was taken into account (relation >’). If the relation between the severity of communication problems and psychosocial problems Jiminishes when emotional competence is taken into account, this indicates the emotional sAmMnetencre cared ac qa meadiatar in the relatinn communication problems of children with DLD and their psychosocial problems.
competence serves as a mediator in the relation. The final aim of this research project was to examine the relative effect of the severity of children’s communication problems of children with DLD and their emotional competence on the level of psychosocial problems. We expected that the level of emotional competence would mediate the relations between the severity of the communication problems of children with DLD and their psychosocial problems (Figure 1). As described above, the indices for smotional competence were related to the level of psychosocial problems (relation b in Figure |). Below we summarise the findings on the relations between the severity of communication sroblems with emotional competence (relation a) and with psychosocial problems (relation c), and with psychosocial problems after emotional competence was taken into account (relation >’). If the relation between the severity of communication problems and psychosocial problems Jiminishes when emotional competence is taken into account, this indicates the emotional sAmMnetencre cared ac qa meadiatar in the relatinn communication problems of children with DLD and their psychosocial problems.
Next, the mediating role of emotional competence in the relation between the severity »f communication problems of children with DLD and their internalizing and externalizing
Next, the mediating role of emotional competence in the relation between the severity »f communication problems of children with DLD and their internalizing and externalizing
Conclusie en praktische implicaties
Conclusie en praktische implicaties
Related topics:
Emotional CommunicationDevelopmental Language DisordersSocial Emotional DevelopmentCommunication Problems
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved