An interventional study of Intervention to address late talking in Developmental Language Disorder, Language Delay and Language Development, sponsored by University of Toronto. Recruiting at 2 sites in Canada. Open to participants aged 18 Months to 30 Months, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2026-06-02.
Sponsored by University of Toronto · Not applicable, Interventional, and Treatment
Late talkers (LT), representing 10-20% of children under 3, demonstrate hallmark syntax and vocabulary deficits similar to preschoolers with developmental language disorder. While effective and early interventions can mitigate the impact of late talking, not enough is known about its neural basis, yet is needed to inform the design of more individualized interventions. This proposed effort uses neuroimaging, along with behavioral methods, with the goal of better understanding the memory-language mechanisms that underlie learning and late talking, while also considering their association to treatment-related changes in LT.
Late talking represents one of the most common reasons children under 3-years of age are referred for speech-language evaluations, impacting about 10%-20% of children in this age-group. Late talkers (LT) also share similarities with children diagnosed with developmental language disorder (DLD) at 4 - 5 years of age, endorsing the notion that shared neurobiological underpinnings might exist between these two clinical groups. However, little is known about the neural basis of late talking, yet is needed to better inform the design of efficacious therapies that address hallmark delays in syntax and vocabulary. For the DLD population, domain-general processes relating memory and language are being investigated in the parent grant, offering valuable testing ground for also advancing the current knowledge base regarding LT. The Procedural circuit Deficit Hypothesis (PDH) posits that relative strengths and weaknesses exist between procedural (impaired) and declarative (less impaired) memory systems. Structural abnormalities in connections between frontal brain regions and basal ganglia, with under activation and reduced connectivity also evident. However, cortical and subcortical regions in the temporal lobes, including hippocampus, might be impaired to a lesser degree.
This proposed research will use diffusion imaging to describe the neural basis (structural connectivity) of late talking and treatment-related change by way of the PDH. The investigators will gather data regarding LT before, after, and following a break in standard intervention for LT (e.g., parent coaching, direct therapy for children who are LT): LT treatment. The investigators will also include a "business as usual": LT no treatment as part of a highly feasible pragmatic design that leverages existing pipelines. The investigators will also include typically developing (TD) peers to inform development vs late talking. The central hypothesis is that treatment designed to improve syntax and vocabulary will change procedural and declarative networks in association with increases in language function and the degree of improvement may be associated with the underlying neurobiology of baseline syntax and vocabulary deficits.
Building on a robust history of recruitment and treatment of toddlers by the investigators' partnering sites, and the investigators' successful imaging partner, this project will enroll 30 LT (n=15 treatment; n=15 controls) and 15 TD peers. Aim 1 will establish the structural connectivity in LT and their TD peers between regions in the procedural learning and declarative networks. In Aim 2, the investigators will establish the neurobiological basis of treatment-related changes in LT only. The investigators examine potential changes in structural connectivity between regions of the procedural learning and declarative memory networks, and investigate whether treatment-related changes occur into the typical range (LT, TD). To meet the scientific goals, the investigators pair behavioral tools (syntax and vocabulary) with neuroimaging to describe co-occurring behavioral performance underlying learning and outcome, while also gathering parental and clinician qualitative data regarding treatment outcomes. This research will contribute novel insights into mechanisms underlying learning and impairment to offer a ground-breaking shift in the understanding of LT.
121 studies on the registry are indexed under Language Development Disorders; 49 are open to participants now.
This study's planned enrollment of 45 is below the median of 74 across 106 interventional studies indexed under Language Development Disorders.
Browse Language Development Disorders studies →University of Toronto is the lead sponsor of 403 studies on the registry; 54 are open to participants now.
Counted across the registry records on this site, refreshed daily.
Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.
Exclusion Criteria:
Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.
Contraindication
A reason a treatment, test or procedure should not be given to a particular person, such as an allergy, another illness or a medicine they take.
Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.
half the participants receive an intervention program addressing late talking. The intervention is comprised of adult learning (to teach parents) and direct support for children who are late talkers. The intervention occurs over 6 to 8 weeks and is designed to improve grammar, vocabulary, and functional communication
Behavioral: Intervention to address late talking
half the participants are waitlist controls who receive intervention at a later date, after the study has ended
this intervention is designed to support both speech and language development in children who are toddlers. Given the age group of children their parents are part of the intervention program. Importantly the frequency of the intervention can range from once to twice per week, with timing also designed to complement the particular agency
Aim 1/Pre - Structural connectivity data using diffusion imaging
Connectivity data (density of streamlines connecting regions of the procedural learning and declarative networks) will be measured using tractography, a 3D modeling technique, to visually represent nerve tracts using data that are collected using diffusion MRI from each of the 45 participants at Weeks 1 to 2 as part of a non-sedated sleep scan.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 (Time 1/pre)
Aim 2/Pre - Changes in structural connectivity data using diffusion imaging
Changes in connectivity data (density of streamlines connecting regions of the procedural learning and declarative networks) calculated using data collected over two time points (pre to post; post to followup) will be measured from each of the 45 participants. Connectivity data measured using tractography collected using diffusion MRI are gathered from these participants at pre, post, and followup to inform these changes over time as part of a non-sedated sleep scan.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Aim 1/Pre - Raw score on the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventories: Words and Sentences- (first set)
Raw score data calculated using the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventories: Words and Sentences. This measure is completed by each of the 45 children's parents. High scores indicate better performance compared to lower scores. Minimum score is '0' and maximum is '680'. These data serve as main secondary outcomes.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 (Time 1/pre - first set)
Aim 1 - Raw score on the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six Parent Version- (second set)
Raw score data calculated using the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under - Parent Version. This measure is completed by each of the 45 children's parents. High scores indicate better performance compared to lower scores. Minimum score is '0' and maximum is '238'. These data will inform main secondary outcomes.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 - (Time 1/pre - second set)
Aim 1/Pre - Raw score on the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six Clinician Version- (third set)
Raw score data calculated using the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under - Clinician Version. This measure is completed by each of the 45 children's clinicians. High scores indicate better performance compared to lower scores. Minimum score is '0' and maximum is '238'. These data will inform main secondary outcomes.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 - (Time 1/pre - third set)
Aim 1/Pre - Raw score on the Intelligibility in Context Scale- (fourth set)
Raw score data calculated using the Intelligibility in Context Scale. This measure is completed by each of the 45 children's parents. High scores indicate better performance compared to lower scores. Minimum score is '0' and maximum is '35'. These data will inform additional secondary outcomes.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 - (Time 1/pre - fourth set)
Aim 1/Pre - Raw score on the Communication Function Classification System- (fifth set)
Raw score data obtained using the Communication Function Classification System. This measure is completed by each of the 45 children's parents. Lower scores indicate better performance compared to higher scores. The minimum score is "1" and the maximum is "5". These data will inform additional secondary outcomes.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 - (Time 1/pre - fifth set)
Aim 1/Pre - Raw score calculated using a Consonant Inventory- (sixth set)
Raw score data obtained using a Consonant Inventory collected during a play-based language sample. These data are collected from each of the 45 children during their assessment with the clinician. Higher scores indicate better performance compared to lower scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "24". These data will inform additional secondary outcomes.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 - (Time 1/pre - sixth set)
Aim 1/Pre - Raw score calculated using a Play-based language sample- (seventh set)
Raw score data obtained on language complexity (grammar and vocabulary) collected during a play-based language sample timed for 15-minutes. These data are collected from each of the 45 children during their assessment with the clinician. Higher scores indicate better performance compared to lower scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is variable. There is not a ceiling since this is based on a spontaneous language sample and some children can talk more than others during the 15-minute period. However the team has a metric of performance based on scores less than the 10th percentile and then those greater than the 10th percentile. Performance at or below the 10th percentile is worse than performance greater than the 10th percentile. These data will inform additional secondary outcomes.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 - (Time 1/pre - seventh set)
Aim 2 - Changes in structural connectivity data using diffusion imaging for late talkers only
Changes in connectivity data (density of streamlines connecting regions of the procedural learning and declarative networks) calculated using data collected over two time points (pre to post; post to followup) will be measured from only the 30 participants who are late talkers. Connectivity data measured using tractography collected using diffusion MRI are gathered from these participants at pre, post, and followup to inform these changes over time as part of a non-sedated sleep scan.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Aim 2 - Raw score changes on the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventories: Words and Sentences- (first set)
Raw change score data calculated using the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventories: Words and Sentences that is completed at pre, post, followup. This measure is completed on three occasions by the 30 parents whose children are late talkers. High change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "680". These data serve as main secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Aim 2 - Raw score changes on the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six Parent Version- (second set)
Raw change score data calculated using the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six that is completed at pre, post, followup. This measure is completed on three occasions by the 30 parents whose children are late talkers. High change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "238". These data serve as main secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Aim 2 - Raw score changes on the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six Clinician Version- (third set)
Raw change score data calculated using the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six that is completed at pre, post, followup. This measure is completed on three occasions by the clinicians of the 30 children who are late talkers. High change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "238". These data serve as main secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Aim 2 - Raw score changes on the Intelligibility in Context Scale- (fourth set)
Raw change score data calculated using the Intelligibility in Context Scale that is completed at pre, post, followup. This measure is completed on three occasions by the 30 parents whose children are late talkers. High change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "35". These data serve as additional secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Aim 2 - Raw score changes on the Communication Function Classification System- CFCS (fifth set)
Raw change score data calculated using the Communication Function Classification System that is completed at pre, post, followup. This measure is completed on three occasions by the 30 parents whose children are late talkers. Higher change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "1" and the maximum score is "5". These data serve as additional secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Aim 2 - Raw score changes in the Consonant Inventory- (sixth set)
Raw change score data obtained using a Consonant Inventory collected during a play-based language sample that is completed at pre, post, followup. These data are collected on three occasions from the 30 children who are late talkers. Higher change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "24". These data serve as additional secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Aim 2 - Raw change scores calculated using a Play-based language sample- (seventh set)
Raw change score data obtained on language complexity (grammar and vocabulary). These data are calculated during a play-based language sample that is completed with a clinician at pre, post, followup. These data are collected on three occasions from the 30 children who are late talkers. Higher change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is variable. There is not a ceiling since this is based on a spontaneous language sample and some children can talk more than others during the 15-minute period. However the team has a metric of performance based on scores less than the 10th percentile and then those greater than the 10th percentile. Performance at or below the 10th percentile is worse than performance greater than the 10th percentile. These data serve as additional secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Aim 2 - Raw change scores calculated using the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventories- (eighth set)
Raw change score data calculated using the MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventories: Words and Sentences that is completed at pre, post, followup. This measure is completed on three occasions by the 30 parents of children who are late talkers as well as by the 15 parents of typically developing peers. High change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "680". These data serve as additional secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Raw change scores calculated using the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six Parent Version- (ninth set)
Raw change score data calculated using the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six Parent Version that is completed at pre, post, followup. This measure is completed on three occasions by the 30 parents of children who are late talkers as well as by the 15 parents of typically developing peers. High change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "238". These data serve as additional secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Raw change scores calculated using the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six Clinician Version- (tenth set)
Raw change score data calculated using the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six Clinician Version that is completed at pre, post, followup. This measure is completed on three occasions by the clinicians of 30 children who are late talkers as well as by clinicians of 15 typically developing peers. High change scores indicate better performance compared to lower change scores. The minimum score is "0" and the maximum score is "238". These data serve as additional secondary outcomes to inform immediate (pre-post) and maintenance of changes (post-followup).
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 8 or 9 (pre to post); Weeks 10 to 17 or 18 (post to followup)
Aim 1/Pre - qualitative data clinician reported
Other outcomes using themes from qualitative questions to the clinicians of the 45 participants. Scores on a scale are not used in this qualitative effort.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 (Pre/Time 1)
Aim 1/Pre - qualitative data parent reported
Other outcomes using themes from qualitative questions to the parents of each of the 45 participants. Scores on a scale are not used in this qualitative effort.
Time frame: Weeks 1 to 2 (Pre/Time 1)
Aim 2 - Qualitative data parent reported
Other outcomes using themes from qualitative questions to the parents of each of the 30 children who are late talkers. These qualitative data are collected at three time points: pre, post, followup. Scores on a scale are not used in this qualitative effort.
Time frame: Weeks 1 or 2 (pre/Time 1); Weeks 9 or 10 (post/Time 2), Weeks 17 or 18 (followup/Time 3)
Aim 2 - qualitative data clinician reported
Other outcomes using themes from qualitative questions to the clinicians of the 30 children who are late talkers. These qualitative data are collected at three time points: pre, post, followup. Scores on a scale are not used in this qualitative effort.
Time frame: Weeks 1 or 2 (pre/Time 1); Weeks 9 or 10 (post/Time 2), Weeks 17 or 18 (followup/Time 3)
Plan to share: Yes — The proposed research will include a sample of late talkers (LT), typically developing (TD) peers, and their parents recruited through the community programs in Ontario Canada. The dataset will include paper-based data along with neuroimaging data, in accordance with Research Ethics Board approval, including parent consent regarding the sharing of data. Further, data are expected to be video- and audio-recorded for reliability and data analyses. While the final dataset will be de-identified, the team believes that the possibility of identification remains due to the use of video- and audio- recorded aspects of this research. Thus, the team will only make the paper-based and neuroimaging data available only under a data-sharing agreement, which applies a higher-level of permission (parent-approved), with the provisos in place
Supporting information: Analytic code
Time frame: In keeping with our Resource Sharing Plan with the NIH, the team agrees to make data available is specific repositories 12 to 24-months after the end of the research project timeline associated with the supplement award mechanism
Access criteria: The team intends to share data with researchers, clinicians, and government/educational officials, including at academic institutions. These individuals will work with institutions/entities that have necessary Ethics Boards and Federal Wide Assurance. The team agrees to institute an adjudication process for granting or denying access to data that includes procedures consistent with the NIH data sharing policies. Requesting individuals will be asked to provide a request in writing that adheres to set components. These individuals will be able to access the data for educational (student training) and research (secondary analyses) purposes regarding intervention outcomes and syntax and vocabulary language-learning profiles in LT and TD peers. The team agrees that the names of individuals and their institutions/entities will be summarized in the annual report regardless of whether or not these persons are granted or denied permission to access the data.
No publications or documents are linked to this record.
Eligibility is decided by the study team. Share this record with your doctor or contact the team directly.
Contact study teamGet an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.
Sign in to followQuestions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.
Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.
Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.
Language Development Disorders →