A major divide is between theories that attribute the difficulties to a low-level problem with auditory temporal processing, and those that propose there is a deficit in a specialised language-learning system. Other accounts emphasise deficits in specific aspects of learning and memory. It can be difficult to choose between theories because they do not always make distinctive predictions, and there is considerable heterogeneity among children with DLD. It has also been suggested that DLD may only arise when more than one underlying deficit is present. Developmental learning disorder in adults
Relatively little research has been conducted to test the outcomes of DLD in adults. In a study comparing 17 men with DLD to siblings without DLD, researchers found that the DLD men had normal intelligence with higher performance IQ than verbal IQ. The participants still exhibited a severe and persisting language disorder, severe literacy impairments, and significant deficits in theory of mind and phonological processing. Within the DLD cohort, higher childhood intelligence and language were associated with superior cognitive and language ability at final adult outcome. In their mid-thirties, the DLD cohort had significantly worse social adaptation (with prolonged unemployment and a paucity of close friendships and love relationships) compared with both their siblings and National Child Development Study (NCDS) control cohorts, matched on childhood IQ and social class. Self-reports showed a higher rate of schizotypal features but not schizoaffective disorder. Four DLD adults had serious mental health problems (two had developed schizophrenia).
There are three points that need to be met for a diagnosis of DLD:
The child has language difficulties that create obstacles to communication or learning in everyday life,
The childs language problems are unlikely to resolve by five years of age, and
The problems are not associated with a known biomedical condition such as brain injury, neurodegenerative conditions, genetic conditions or chromosome disorders such as Down syndrome, sensorineural hearing loss, autism spectrum disorder, or intellectual disability.For research and epidemiological purposes, specific cutoffs on language assessments have been used to document the first criterion. Tomblin et al. proposed the EpiSLI criterion, based on five composite scores representing performance in three domains of language (vocabulary, grammar, and narration) and two modalities (comprehension and production). Children scoring in the lowest 10% on two or more composite scores are identified as having language disorder. The second criterion, persistence of language problems, can be difficult to judge in a young child, but longitudinal studies have shown that difficulties are less likely to resolve for children who have poor language comprehension, rather than difficulties confined to expressive language. In addition, children with isolated difficulties in just one of the areas noted under subtypes tend to make better progress than those whose language is impaired in several areas.The third criterion specifies that DLD is used for children whose language disorder is not part of another biomedical condition, such as a genetic syndrome, a sensorineural hearing loss, neurological disease, autism spectrum disorder or intellectual disability – these were termed differentiating conditions by the CATALISE panel.