ArticleBrain sciences2020
Language across the Lifespan in Fragile X Syndrome: Characteristics and Considerations for Assessment.
Article in Brain sciences, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed, 14 citations in OpenAlex.
- Prelinguistic Communication Complexity of Children With Neurogenetic Syndromes.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2025Article
- Fragile X Syndrome: Recent Research Updates toward Capturing Treatments' Improvement in Clinical Trials.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Analysis of a Repetitive Language Coding System: Comparisons between Fragile X Syndrome, Autism, and Down Syndrome.Brain sciences · 2022Article
- Communication in fragile X syndrome: Patterns and implications for assessment and intervention.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
While it is widely acknowledged that language development is delayed for the majority of individuals with fragile X syndrome (FXS), there has been limited research into how best to assess this area. This study aimed to deepen the understanding of standardized language assessment in FXS by addressing the three following objectives: (1) Examine the feasibility and validity of widely-used, standardized assessments in participants with FXS; (2) describe linguistic and cognitive profiles for a large sample of individuals with FXS; and (3) Compare results obtained from objective testing in clinic to those obtained using caregiver report. Results indicate that previous results indicating strong correlations between cognition and language results hold true across a wide range of ages as well as across multiple assessments, with an exception in very young children. Caregiver report tended to give lower estimates of language ability than what was found using an objectively administered assessment. Appropriate assessments remain difficult to find as a significant percentage of individuals scored at floor when scaled scores were calculated. Further, a sub-group of participants were coded for behavioral response to testing demands, the majority being able to complete a standardized assessment. These results speak to the need for assessments that provide a wider range of items so individuals can both achieve a valid score and demonstrate progress in their attainment of language skills.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.