Assessment will usually include an interview with the child’s caregiver, observation of the child in an unstructured setting, a hearing test, and standardized tests of language and nonverbal ability. There is a wide range of language assessments in English. Some are restricted for use by speech and language professionals (therapists or SALTs in the UK, speech-language pathologists, SLPs, in the US and Australia).

A commonly used test battery for diagnosis of SLI is the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF).

Assessments that can be completed by a parent or teacher can be useful to identify children who may require more in-depth evaluation.

The Grammar and Phonology Screening (GAPS) test is a quick (ten minute) simple and accurate screening test developed and standardized in the UK. It is suitable for children from 3;4 to 6;8 years;months and can be administered by professionals and non-professionals (including parents) alike, and has been demonstrated to be highly accurate (98% accuracy) in identifying impaired children who need specialist help vs non-impaired children. This makes it potentially a feasible test for widespread screening.

The Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC–2) is a parent questionnaire suitable for testing language skills in school-aged children.

Informal assessments, such as language samples, may also be used. This procedure is useful when the normative sample of a given test is inappropriate for a given child, for instance, if the child is bilingual and the sample was of monolingual children. It is also an ecologically valid measure of all aspects of language (e.g. semantics, syntax, pragmatics, etc.).

To complete a language sample, the SLP will spend about 15 minutes talking with the child. The sample may be of a conversation (Hadley, 1998), or narrative retell. In a narrative language sample, the SLP will tell the child a story using a wordless picture book (e.g. "Frog Where Are You?", Mayer, 1969), then ask the child to use the pictures and tell the story back.

Language samples are typically transcribed using computer software such as the Systematic Analysis of Language Software (SALT, Miller et al. 2012), and then analyzed. For example, the SLP might look for whether the child introduces characters to their story or jumps right in, whether the events follow a logical order, and whether the narrative includes a main idea or theme and supporting details.

Assessment will usually include an interview with the child’s caregiver, observation of the child in an unstructured setting, a hearing test, and standardized tests of language. There is a wide range of language assessments in English. Some are restricted for use by experts in speech-language pathology: speech and language therapists (SaLTs/SLTs) in the UK, speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the US and Australia. A commonly used test battery for diagnosis of DLD is the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (CELF).

Assessments that can be completed by a parent or teacher can be useful to identify children who may require more in-depth evaluation. The Children’s Communication Checklist (CCC–2) is a parent questionnaire suitable for assessing everyday use of language in children aged 4 years and above who can speak in sentences.

Informal assessments, such as language samples, are often used by speech-language therapists/pathologists to complement formal testing and give an indication of the child's language in a more naturalistic context. A language sample may be of a conversation or narrative retell. In a narrative language sample, an adult may tell the child a story using a wordless picture book (e.g. Frog Where Are You?, Mayer, 1969), then ask the child to use the pictures and tell the story back. Language samples can be transcribed using computer software such as the Systematic Analysis of Language Software, and then analyzed for a range of features: e.g., the grammatical complexity of the child's utterances, whether the child introduces characters to their story or jumps right in, whether the events follow a logical order, and whether the narrative includes a main idea or theme and supporting details.

Developmental Verbal Dyspraxia can be diagnosed by a speech language pathologist (SLP) through specific exams that measure oral mechanisms of speech. The oral mechanisms exam involves tasks such as pursing lips, blowing, licking lips, elevating the tongue, and also involves an examination of the mouth. A complete exam also involves observation of the patient eating and talking. Tests such as the Kaufman Speech Praxis test, a more formal examination, are also used in diagnosis.

A differential diagnosis of DVD/CAS is often not possible for children under the age of 2 years old. Even when children are between 2–3 years, a clear diagnosis cannot always occur, because at this age, they may still be unable to focus on, or cooperate with, diagnostic testing.

Epidemiological surveys, in the US and Canada, estimated the prevalence of SLI in 5-year-olds at around 7 percent. However, neither study adopted the stringent 'discrepancy' criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders or ICD-10; SLI was diagnosed if the child scored below cut-off on standardized language tests, but had a nonverbal IQ of 90 or above and no other exclusionary criteria.

DLD is defined purely in behavioural terms: there is no biological test. There are three points that need to be met for a diagnosis of DLD:

1. The child has language difficulties that create obstacles to communication or learning in everyday life,

2. The child's language problems are unlikely to resolve by five years of age, and

3. 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, or 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. Language disorders occurring with these conditions need to be assessed and children offered appropriate intervention, but a terminological distinction is made so that these cases would be diagnosed as Language Disorder associated with ___, with the main diagnosis being specified: e.g. "Language Disorder associated with Autism Spectrum Disorder." The reasoning behind these diagnostic distinctions is discussed further by Bishop (2017).

There are tests that can indicate with high probability whether a person is a dyslexic. If diagnostic testing indicates that a person may be dyslexic, such tests are often followed up with a full diagnostic assessment to determine the extent and nature of the disorder. Tests can be administered by a teacher or computer. Some test results indicate how to carry out teaching strategies.

1. SCAN is the most common tool for diagnosing APD, and it also standardized. It is composed for four subsets: discrimination of monaurally presented single words against background noise, acoustically degraded single words, dichotically presented single words, sentence stimuli. Different versions of the test are used depending on the age of the patient.

2. Random Gap Detection Test (RGDT) is also a standardized test. It assesses an individual’s gap detection threshold of tones and white noise. The exam includes stimuli at four different frequencies (500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz) and white noise clicks of 50 ms duration. It is a useful test because it provides an index of auditory temporal resolution. In children, an overall gap detection threshold greater than 20 ms means they have failed.

3. Gaps in Noise Test (GIN) also measures temporal resolution by testing the patient's gap detection threshold in white noise.

4. Pitch Patterns Sequence Test (PPT) and Duration Patterns Sequence Test (DPT) measure auditory pattern identification. The PPS has s series of three tones presented at either of two pitches (high or low). Meanwhile, the DPS has a series of three tones that vary in duration rather than pitch (long or short). Patients are then asked to describe the pattern of pitches presented.

Sensory aphasia cannot be diagnosed through the use of imaging techniques. Differences in cognition between asymptomatic subjects and affected patients can be observed via functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). However, these results only reveal temporal differences in cognition between control and diagnosed subjects. The degree of progression during therapy can also be surveyed through cognition tests monitored by fMRI. Many patients’ progress is assessed over time via repeated testing and corresponding cerebral imaging by fMRI.

Dyslexic children require special instruction for word analysis and spelling from an early age. While there are fonts that may help people with dyslexia better understand writing, this might simply be due to the added spacing between words. The prognosis, generally speaking, is positive for individuals who are identified in childhood and receive support from friends and family.

Sensory aphasia is typically diagnosed by non-invasive evaluations. Neurologists, neuropsychologists or speech pathologists will administer oral evaluations to determine the extent of a patient’s comprehension and speech capability. Initial assessment will determine if the cause of linguistic deficiency is aphasia. If the diagnosis is then confirmed, testing will next address the type of aphasia and its severity. The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination specializes in determining the severity of a sensory aphasia through the observation of conversational behaviors. Several modalities of perception and response are observed in conjunction with the subject’s ability to process sensory information. The location of the brain lesion and type of the aphasia can then be inferred from the observed symptoms. The Minnesota Test for Differential Diagnosis is the most lengthy and thorough assessment of sensory aphasia. It pinpoints weaknesses in the auditory and visual senses, as well as reading comprehension. From this differential diagnosis, a patient’s course of treatment can be determined. After treatment planning, the Porch Index of Communicative Ability is used to evaluate prognosis and the degree of recovery.

Many normed assessments can be used in evaluating skills in the primary academic domains: reading, including word recognition, fluency, and comprehension; mathematics, including computation and problem solving; and written expression, including handwriting, spelling and composition.

The most commonly used comprehensive achievement tests include the Woodcock-Johnson IV (WJ IV), Wechsler Individual Achievement Test II (WIAT II), the Wide Range Achievement Test III (WRAT III), and the Stanford Achievement Test–10th edition. These tests include measures of many academic domains that are reliable in identifying areas of difficulty.

In the reading domain, there are also specialized tests that can be used to obtain details about specific reading deficits. Assessments that measure multiple domains of reading include Gray's Diagnostic Reading Tests–2nd edition (GDRT II) and the Stanford Diagnostic Reading Assessment. Assessments that measure reading subskills include the Gray Oral Reading Test IV – Fourth Edition (GORT IV), Gray Silent Reading Test, Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP), Tests of Oral Reading and Comprehension Skills (TORCS), Test of Reading Comprehension 3 (TORC-3), Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE), and the Test of Reading Fluency. A more comprehensive list of reading assessments may be obtained from the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.

The purpose of assessment is to determine what is needed for intervention, which also requires consideration of contextual variables and whether there are comorbid disorders that must also be identified and treated, such as behavioral issues or language delays. These contextual variables are often assessed using parent and teacher questionnaire forms that rate the students' behaviors and compares them to standardized norms.

However, caution should be made when suspecting the person with a learning disability may also have dementia, especially as people with Down's syndrome may have the neuroanatomical profile but not the associated clinical signs and symptoms. Examination can be carried out of executive functioning as well as social and cognitive abilities but may need adaptation of standardized tests to take account of special needs.

The best way to see if anomic aphasia has developed is by using verbal as well as imaging tests. The combination of the two tests seem to be most effective, since either test done alone may give false positives or false negatives. For example, the verbal test is used to see if there is a speech disorder, and whether it is a problem in speech production or in comprehension. Patients with Alzheimer's disease have speech problems that are linked to dementia or progressive aphasias which can include anomia. The imaging test, mostly done using MRI scans, is ideal for lesion mapping or viewing deterioration in the brain. However, imaging cannot diagnose anomia on its own because the lesions may not be located deep enough to damage the white matter or damage the arcuate fasciculus. However, anomic aphasia is very difficult to associate with a specific lesion location in the brain. Therefore, the combination of speech tests and imaging tests has the highest sensitivity and specificity.

It is important to first do a hearing test, in case the patient cannot clearly hear the words or sentences needed in the speech repetition test. In the speech tests, the person is asked to repeat a sentence with common words; if the person cannot identify the word but he or she can describe it, then the person is highly likely to have anomic aphasia. However, to be completely sure, the test is given while a test subject is in an fMRI scanner, and the exact location of the lesions and areas activated by speech are pinpointed. Few simpler or cheaper options are available, so lesion mapping and speech repetition tests are the main ways of diagnosing anomic aphasia.

According to the DSM-IV-TR, communication disorders are usually first diagnosed in childhood or adolescence though they are not limited as childhood disorders and may persist into adulthood. They may also occur with other disorders.

Diagnosis involves testing and evaluation during which it is determined if the scores/performance are "substantially below" developmental expectations and if they "significantly" interfere with academic achievement, social interactions and daily living. This assessment may also determine if the characteristic is deviant or delayed. Therefore, it may be possible for an individual to have communication challenges but not meet the criteria of being "substantially below" criteria of the DSM IV-TR.

It should also be noted that the DSM diagnoses do not comprise a complete list of all communication disorders, for example, auditory processing disorder is not classified under the DSM or ICD-10.

The following diagnoses are included in the communication disorders:

- Expressive language disorder – Characterized by difficulty expressing oneself beyond simple sentences and a limited vocabulary. An individual understands language better than their ability to use it; they may have a lot to say but have difficulties organizing and retrieving the words to get an idea across beyond what is expected for their developmental stage.

- Mixed receptive-expressive language disorder – problems comprehending the commands of others.

- Stuttering – a speech disorder characterized by a break in fluency, where sounds, syllables or words may be repeated or prolonged.

- Phonological disorder – a speech sound disorder characterized by problems in making patterns of sound errors, i.e. "dat" for "that".

- Communication disorder NOS (not otherwise specified) – the DSM-IV diagnosis in which disorders that do not meet the specific criteria for the disorder listed above may be classified.

Assessments for developmental coordination disorder typically require a developmental history, detailing ages at which significant developmental milestones, such as crawling and walking, occurred. Motor skills screening includes activities designed to indicate developmental coordination disorder, including balancing, physical sequencing, touch sensitivity, and variations on walking activities.

The American Psychiatric Association has four primary inclusive diagnostic criteria for determining if a child has developmental coordination disorder.

The criteria are as follows:

1. Motor Coordination will be greatly reduced, although the intelligence of the child is normal for the age.

2. The difficulties the child experiences with motor coordination or planning interfere with the child's daily life.

3. The difficulties with coordination are not due to any other medical condition

4. If the child does also experience comorbidities such as mental retardation; motor coordination is still disproportionally affected.

Screening tests which can be used to assess developmental coordination disorder include:-

- Movement Assessment Battery for Children (Movement-ABC – Movement-ABC 2)

- Peabody Developmental Motor Scales- Second Edition (PDMS-2)

- Bruininks-Oseretsky Test of Motor Proficiency (BOTMP-BOT-2)

- Motoriktest für vier- bis sechsjährige Kinder (MOT 4-6)

- Körperkoordinationtest für Kinder (KTK)

- Test of Gross Motor Development, Second Edition (TGMD-2)

- Maastrichtse Motoriek Test (MMT)

- Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (WAIS-IV)

- Wechsler Individual Achievement Test (WAIT-II)

- Test of Word Reading Efficiency (TOWRE-2)

- Developmental Coordination Disorder Questionnaire (DCD-Q)

- Children's Self-Perceptions of Adequacy in, and Predilection for Physical Activity (CSAPPA)

Currently there is no single gold standard assessment test.

A baseline motor assessment establishes the starting point for developmental intervention programs. Comparing children to normal rates of development may help to establish areas of significant difficulty.

However, research in the "British Journal of Special Education" has shown that knowledge is severely limited in many who should be trained to recognise and respond to various difficulties, including developmental coordination disorder, dyslexia and deficits in attention, motor control and perception (DAMP). The earlier that difficulties are noted and timely assessments occur, the quicker intervention can begin. A teacher or GP could miss a diagnosis if they are only applying a cursory knowledge.

"Teachers will not be able to recognise or accommodate the child with learning difficulties in class if their knowledge is limited. Similarly GPs will find it difficult to detect and appropriately refer children with learning difficulties."

Expressive aphasia is classified as non-fluent aphasia, as opposed to fluent aphasia. Diagnosis is done on a case by case basis, as lesions often affect the surrounding cortex and deficits are highly variable among patients with aphasia.

A physician is typically the first person to recognize aphasia in a patient who is being treated for damage to the brain. Routine processes for determining the presence and location of lesion in the brain include Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) and Computed Tomography (CT) scans. The physician will complete a brief assessment of the patient's ability to understand and produce language. For further diagnostic testing, the physician will refer the patient to a speech-language pathologist, who will complete a comprehensive evaluation.

In order to diagnose a patient who is suffering from Broca’s aphasia, there are certain commonly used tests and procedures. The Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) classifies individuals based on their scores on the subtests; spontaneous speech, auditory comprehension, repetition, and naming. The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) can inform users what specific type of aphasia they may have, infer the location of lesion, and assess current language abilities. The Porch Index of Communication Ability (PICA) can predict potential recovery outcomes of the patients with aphasia. Quality of life measurement is also an important assessment tool. Tests such as the Assessment for Living with Aphasia (ALA) and the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) allow for therapists to target skills that are important and meaningful for the individual.

In addition to formal assessments, patient and family interviews are valid and important sources of information. The patient’s previous hobbies, interests, personality, and occupation are all factors that will not only impact therapy but may motivate them throughout the recovery process. Patient interviews and observations allow professionals to learn the priorities of the patient and family and determine what the patient hopes to regain in therapy. Observations of the patient may also be beneficial to determine where to begin treatment. The current behaviors and interactions of the patient will provide the therapist with more insight about the client and his or her individual needs. Other information about the patient can be retrieved from medical records, patient referrals from physicians, and the nursing staff.

In non-speaking patients who use manual languages, diagnosis is often based on interviews from the patient's acquaintances, noting the differences in sign production pre- and post- damage to the brain. Many of these patients will also begin to rely on non-linguistic gestures to communicate, rather than signing since their language production is hindered.

There is no cure for DVD/CAS, but with appropriate, intensive intervention, people with the disorder can improve significantly.

DVD/CAS requires various forms of therapy which varies with the individual needs of the patient. Typically, treatment involves one-on-one therapy with a speech language pathologist (SLP). In children with DVD/CAS, consistency is a key element in treatment. Consistency in the form of communication, as well as the development and use of oral communication are extremely important in aiding a child's speech learning process.

Many therapy approaches are not supported by thorough evidence; however, the aspects of treatment that do seem to be agreed upon are the following:

- Treatment needs to be intense and highly individualized, with about 3-5 therapy sessions each week

- A maximum of 30 minutes per session is best for young children

- Principles of motor learning theory and intense speech-motor practice seem to be the most effective

- Non-speech oral motor therapy is not necessary or sufficient

- A multi-sensory approach to therapy may be beneficial: using sign language, pictures, tactile cues, visual prompts, and Augmentative and Alternative Communication (AAC) can be helpful.

Although these aspects of treatment are supported by much clinical documentation, they lack evidence from systematic research studies. In ASHA's position statement on DVD/CAS, ASHA states there is a critical need for collaborative, interdisciplinary, and programmatic research on the neural substrates, behavioral correlates, and treatment options for DVD/CAS.

It has been discovered that APD and ADHD present overlapping symptoms. Below is a ranked order of behavioral symptoms that are most frequently observed in each disorder. Professionals evaluated the overlap of symptoms between the two disorders. The order below is of symptoms that are almost always observed. This chart proves that although the symptoms listed are different, it is easy to get confused between many of them.

There is a high rate of co-occurrence between AD/HD and CAPD. Research shows that 84% of children with APD have confirmed or suspected ADHD. Co-occurrence between ADHD and APD is 41% for children with confirmed diagnosis of ADHD, and 43% for children suspected of having ADHD.

Individuals with conduction aphasia are able to express themselves fairly well, with some word finding and functional comprehension difficulty. Although people with aphasia may be able to express themselves fairly well, they tend to have issues repeating phrases, especially phrases that are long and complex. When asked to repeat something, the patient will be unable to do so without significant difficulty, repeatedly attempting to self-correct ("conduite d'approche"). When asked a question, however, patients can answer spontaneously and fluently.

Several standardized test batteries exist for diagnosing and classifying aphasias. These tests are capable of identifying conduction aphasia with relative accuracy. The Boston Diagnostic Aphasia Examination (BDAE) and the Western Aphasia Battery (WAB) are two commonly used test batteries for diagnosing conduction aphasia. These examinations involve a set of tests, which include asking patients to name pictures, read printed words, count aloud, and repeat words and non-words (such as "shwazel").

TMoA is diagnosed by the referring physician and speech-language pathologist (SLP). The overall sign of TMoA is nonfluent, reduced, fragmentary echoic, and perseverative speech with frequent hesitations and pauses. Patients with TMoA also have difficulty initiating and maintaining speech. However, speech articulation and auditory comprehension remain typical. The hallmark sign of TMoA is intact repetition in the presence of these signs and symptoms.

TMoA, or any other type of aphasia, is identified and diagnosed through the screening and assessment process. Screening can be conducted by a SLP or other professional when there is a suspected aphasia. The screening does not diagnose aphasia, rather it points to the need for a further comprehensive assessment. A screening typically includes evaluation of oral motor functions, speech production skills, comprehension, use of written and verbal language, cognitive communication, swallowing, and hearing. Both the screening and assessment must be sensitive to the patient’s linguistic and cultural differences. An individual will be recommended to receive a comprehensive assessment if their screening shows signs of aphasia. Under the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) and World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines and the "International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health" (ICF) framework, the comprehensive assessment encompasses not only speech and language, but also impairments in body structure and function, co-morbid deficits, limitations in activity and participation, and contextual (environmental and personal) factors. The assessment can be static (current functioning) or dynamic (ongoing) and the assessment tools can be standardized or nonstandardized. Typically, the assessment for aphasia includes a gathering of a case history, a self-report from the patient, an oral-motor examination, assessment of expressive and receptive language in spoken and written forms, and identification of facilitators and barriers to patient success. From this assessment, the SLP will determine type of aphasia and the patient's communicative strengths and weaknesses and how their diagnosis may impact their overall quality of life.

Children who demonstrate deficiencies early in their speech and language development are at risk for continued speech and language issues throughout later childhood. Similarly, even if these speech and language problems have been resolved, children with early language delay are more at risk for difficulties in phonological awareness, reading, and writing throughout their lives. Children with mixed receptive-expressive language disorder are often likely to have long-term implications for language development, literacy, behavior, social development, and even mental health problems. If suspected of having a mixed receptive-expressive language disorder, treatment is available from a speech therapist or pathologist. Most treatments are short term, and rely upon accommodations made within the environment, in order to minimize interfering with work or school. Programs that involve intervention planning that link verbal short term memory with visual/non-verbal information may be helpful for these children. In addition, approaches such as parent training for language stimulation and monitoring language through the "watch and see" method are recommended. The watch-and-see technique advises children with mixed receptive-expressive language disorder who come from stable, middle-class homes without any other behavioral, medical, or hearing problems should be vigilantly monitored rather than receive intervention. It is often the case that children do not meet the eligibility criteria established through a comprehensive oral language evaluation; and as a result, are not best suited for early intervention programs and require a different approach besides the "one size fits all" model.

Classifying speech into normal and disordered is more problematic than it first seems. By a strict classification, only 5% to 10% of the population has a completely normal manner of speaking (with respect to all parameters) and healthy voice; all others suffer from one disorder or another.

There are three different levels of classification when determining the magnitude and type of a speech disorders and the proper treatment or therapy:

1. Sounds the patient can produce

1. Phonemic – can be produced easily; used meaningfully and constructively

2. Phonetic – produced only upon request; not used consistently, meaningfully, or constructively; not used in connected speech

2. Stimulate sounds

1. Easily stimulated

2. Stimulate after demonstration and probing (i.e. with a tongue depressor)

3. Cannot produce the sound

1. Cannot be produced voluntarily

2. No production ever observed

Disorders and tendencies included and excluded under the category of communication disorders may vary by source. For example, the definitions offered by the American Speech–Language–Hearing Association differ from that of the Diagnostic Statistical Manual 4th edition (DSM-IV).

Gleanson (2001) defines a communication disorder as a speech and language disorder which refers to problems in communication and in related areas such as oral motor function. The delays and disorders can range from simple sound substitution to the inability to understand or use their native language.

In general, communications disorders commonly refer to problems in speech (comprehension and/or expression) that significantly interfere with an individual’s achievement and/or quality of life. Knowing the operational definition of the agency performing an assessment or giving a diagnosis may help.

Persons who speak more than one language or are considered to have an accent in their location of residence do not have speech disorders if they are speaking in a manner consistent with their home environment or a blending of their home and foreign environment.

In most cases the cause is unknown. However, there are various known causes of speech impediments, such as "hearing loss, neurological disorders, brain injury, intellectual disability, drug abuse, physical impairments such as cleft lip and palate, and vocal abuse or misuse."

Treatment for aphasias is generally individualized, focusing on specific language and communication improvements, and regular exercise with communication tasks. Regular therapy for conduction aphasics has been shown to result in steady improvement on the Western Aphasia Battery. However, conduction aphasia is a mild aphasia, and conduction aphasics score highly on the WAB at baseline.

Mixed receptive-expressive language disorder (DSM-IV 315.32) is a communication disorder in which both the receptive and expressive areas of communication may be affected in any degree, from mild to severe. Children with this disorder have difficulty understanding words and sentences. This impairment is classified by deficiencies in expressive and receptive language development that is not attributed to sensory deficits, nonverbal intellectual deficits, a neurological condition, environmental deprivation or psychiatric impairments. Research illustrates that 2% to 4% of 5 year olds have mixed receptive-expressive language disorder. This distinction is made when children have issues in expressive language skills, the production of language, and when children also have issues in receptive language skills, the understanding of language. Those with mixed receptive-language disorder have a normal left-right anatomical asymmetry of the planum temporale and parietale. This is attributed to a reduced left hemisphere functional specialization for language. Taken from a measure of cerebral blood flow (SPECT) in phonemic discrimination tasks, children with mixed receptive-expressive language disorder do not exhibit the expected predominant left hemisphere activation. Mixed receptive-expressive language disorder is also known as receptive-expressive language impairment (RELI) or receptive language disorder.