| Title |
Non-word Repetition Impairment in Autism and Specific Language Impairment: Evidence for Distinct Underlying Cognitive Causes
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, June 2012
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10803-012-1579-8 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
David Williams, Heather Payne, Chloë Marshall |
| Abstract |
Language-impaired individuals with autism perform poorly on tests such as non-word repetition that are sensitive clinical markers of specific language impairment (SLI). This has fuelled the theory that language impairment in autism represents a co-morbid SLI. However, the underlying cause of these deficits may be different in each disorder. In a novel task, we manipulated non-word stimuli in three ways known to influence the repetition accuracy of children with SLI. Participants with SLI were affected differently by these manipulations to children with autism. Children with autism performed similarly to language-matched typical children in terms of levels and patterns of performance, and types of error made, suggesting that the underlying cognitive cause of non-word repetition deficits is different in each disorder. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 4 | 33% |
| United States | 1 | 8% |
| Australia | 1 | 8% |
| Uruguay | 1 | 8% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Scientists | 6 | 50% |
| Members of the public | 5 | 42% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 129 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Australia | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 127 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 26 | 20% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 17% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 14 | 11% |
| Researcher | 12 | 9% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 8% |
| Other | 28 | 22% |
| Unknown | 17 | 13% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Psychology | 41 | 32% |
| Linguistics | 17 | 13% |
| Social Sciences | 11 | 9% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 8 | 6% |
| Medicine and Dentistry | 8 | 6% |
| Other | 21 | 16% |
| Unknown | 23 | 18% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 November 2023.
All research outputs
#3,457,140
of 25,654,806 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
#1,460
of 5,484 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#21,935
of 177,987 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders
#22
of 58 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,654,806 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,484 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.4. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 177,987 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 58 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 62% of its contemporaries.