The Grammatical Structures Comprehension Test (CEG) was used to analyze grammatical comprehension problems in native Spanish-speaking children with Specific Language Impairment (SLI). The test is divided into 20 blocks containing the most common grammatical structures in Spanish. Our objective was to establish whether the CEG was sensitive in detecting these problems and whether there were differential patterns in grammatical comprehension between children with SLI (14 participants) and two control groups: a chronological control group (CC) with 14 participants and a linguistic control group (LC) also with 14 participants. We found significant differences between the SLI group and the chronological control participants (Box’s M = 63.080, F = 1, 159, p = .238), with a correct classification rate of 85.7 % in the discriminant function analysis. These differences did not occur in all the blocks, in which we identified a range of different performance patterns that varied according to the structures being analyzed. This work helps to clarify certain questions about grammatical comprehension in children with SLI and contributes to the debate on delay vs. “delay within the delay”.

In this study 160 children, aged 11 years with a definite history of specific language impairment (SLI), completed four tasks that could be potential positive psycholinguistic markers for this impairment: a third person singular task, a past tense task, a nonword repetition task, and a sentence repetition task. This allowed examination of more than one type of marker simultaneously, facilitating both comparisons between markers and also evaluation of combinations of markers in relation to identifying SLI. The study also provided data regarding the markers in relation to nonverbal IQ, made use of new normative data on all tasks, and examined marker accuracy in relation to current language status. The results show that markers vary in accuracy, with sentence repetition (a previously unused marker) proving to be the most useful. This psycholinguistic marker shows high levels of sensitivity (90%), specificity (85%), and overall accuracy (88%), as well as being able to identify the majority of children whose current language status falls in the normal range despite a history of SLI.