Specific language impairment and @entity245 : What are the boundaries? Data from Greek XXXX .

@entity1 @entity245 @entity10870 @entity7687
UNASSIGNED: This study examines the significance (between-groups comparisons) and frequency (within-group analyses) of deficits in @entity245 ( @entity245 , mainly deficits in decoding and phonemic awareness), @entity10870 ( @entity10870 , mainly deficits in listening comprehension), or both (mainly deficits in phonological short-term memory [STM]). @entity1 included two groups of @entity1 who had received a diagnosis of either @entity10870 (N=15) or @entity245 (N=15). For the between-groups comparison, the groups were matched pairwise on nonverbal IQ to 30 chronological age controls (CAC) and 30 reading level controls (RLC). For the within-group analyses, the @entity1 were compared to 91 CACs and 63 RLCs. We developed tasks not used for the diagnoses to assess phonological skills (decoding, phonemic awareness, phonological STM) and @entity7687 (listening and reading comprehension). @entity10870 @entity1 scored lower than both @entity245 @entity1 and RLCs on tasks assessing listening and reading comprehension, and lower than RLCs on phonological STM and phonemic awareness. Within-group comparisons showed that a higher proportion of @entity10870 than @entity245 @entity1 presented severe deficits in the same four domains. The opposite pattern was found for decoding skills (7 @entity10870 @entity1 with a severe deficit, versus 13 in the @entity245 group). These findings are discussed in the light of models explaining the overlap between @entity10870 and @entity245 . They highlight the need to assess both phonological and @entity7687 in @entity10870 and @entity245 @entity1 , using both between- and within-groups designs.
