CHILDHOOD PSYCHOSES:
RESULTS OF DRUG TREATMENT
ON LANGUAGE DEVELOPMENT
IN DOWN AND NON-DOWN SUBJECTS
Renato COCCHI, a neurologist and a medical
psychologist
Summary
After 3-106 months of individualised drug
therapies, the results on language development of 37 psychotic Down children
and 30 psychotic non-Down children were compared. The Down group (PDG)
comprised 24 M and 13 F; average age at first consultation: 6 +/- 3;2 years;
chromosomal diagnoses: 35 pure trisomy 21, 1 mosaicism and 1 not known;
DSM-III, R diagnosis: 34 early onset and 3 late onset Pervasive Developmental
Disorder.
The non-Down group (PnDG) comprised 17 M
and 13 F; average age at first consultation 6;11 +/- 3;2 years; DSM-II,R
diagnoses: 21 early onset and 4 late onset Pervasive Developmental Disorder, 5
Atypical Pervasive Developmental Disorder.
Results on echolalia, understanding
simple and double commands, the use of new words, the correct use of pronouns
and the ability to say "yes", the use of verbal language to ask and
to tell. Significant results (p < .001) in the understanding of simple and
double commands in both groups, but also in the use of new words in the PDG.
All the remaining investigated fields of verbal language showed a trend to
improve in direct proportion to the duration of the drug therapy.
Key words: Childhood psychoses; Down children; non-Down children; drug
therapy; individualised regimen; language development; results.
One of the most severe symptoms in the
psychotic child's behaviour is the inability to use verbal language for normal
communication. This disorder can manifest itself in various forms: language may
not yet have been acquired or may have regressed after beginning to develop
precociously.
It may remain at a rudimentary stage showing
particular characteristics (immediate and delayed echolalia, inability to say
"yes", pronoun reversal, etc.). Then again it may be structurally
correct but inadequate for communication, as in Asperger's Autistic
Psychopathy.
Verbal language impairment is constantly
present and the fact that gestual language is a poor substitute strongly
suggests that the impairment is active in the areas of both comprehension and
production.
Any therapeutical approach towards curing
childhood psychoses cannot afford to ignore verification of the results in this
area. The detailed evaluation of the results obtained following drug treatment
of a group of psychotic Down children (PDG) and a group of psychotic non-Down
children (PNDG) treated for various periods of time continues.
After a global comparative evaluation
(Cocchi, 1990), specific comparative evaluation of social behaviour (Cocchi,
1991a), the outcome on school achievement (Cocchi, 1991b) and on motory and
vocal stereotypies (Cocchi, 1991c), in this research the therapy's effect on
"abnormal language" symptoms was examined.
As the therapies were individualised, as
reported in previous articles (Cocchi, 1990b, Cocchi 1991a and 1991b), the
statistical comparison is prevalently descriptive, and for this reason the
clinical evaluations of the investigated behaviour or symptom in each single
case are shown here (Tables 3 and 4).
The children making up the survey groups are
those whose the parents accepted drug treatment administered along the
guidelines already described (Cocchi, 1990d). The two groups involved comprise
only subjects who undervent at least one check up of the therapy effects after
a minimum of 3 months' treatment.
Materials and method
All the clinical records of psychotic Down
and non-Down subjects who had been the object of previous research (Cocchi,
1991a & 1991b), were re-examined. To the PnDG were added the records of one
subject escaped the previous survey.
The clinical records selected were those
cases where a diagnosis of childhood psychosis conforming to DSM-III, R (1987)
had been made during the first consultation.
The following symptoms or behaviours were
evaluated:
- echolalia;
- performs simple verbal commands;
- performs double verbal commands;
- pronoun reversal;
- says "yes", when he/she agrees;
- uses language for asking;
- uses language for telling.
The presence of the verbal symptoms or
behaviours was scored, before and after a therapy period by means of a five
steps scale of intensity as follows:
0 = symptom or behaviour not present;
1 = rarely present;
2 = moderately present;
3 = very present;
4 = always present.
This scale works from 4 to 0 as for
echolalia and from 0 to 4 for the other verbal symptoms.
For each child were also noted:
- sex;
- age at first consultation;
- chromosomal diagnosis (for the PDG).
For the statistical analysis the tests of
Wilcoxon and the Chi Square were chosen.
Results
The results, up to the end of August 1991,
were reported on tables 1-6.
Two groups of children were identified on
the basis of diagnosis made at first consultation, and the length of time of
drugs were taken:
1. Psychotic Down children Group (PDG): 37
Ss = 100.00% .
Characteristics of PDG are:
Sex: M = 24 e F = 13; M/F ratio = 184.62/100
.
Distribution of chromosomal anomalies:
Pure trisomy 21: 35 Ss = 94.59% ;
Mosaicisms: 1 S = 2.70% ;
Not known: 1 S = 2.70% .
Average age at first consultation: 6 years
with SD = 3; 2 years.
Diagnosis, according to DSM-III,R:
Early onset Pervasive Developmental
Disorder: 34 Ss = 91.89% ;
Late onset Pervasive Developmental Disorder:
3 Ss = 8.11% .
2. Psychotic non-Down group (PNDG): 30 Ss =
100.00% ;
Characteristics of PnDG are:
Sex: M = 17 e F = 13; M/F ratio = 130.77/100
;
Average age at first consultation: 6; 11
years, with SD = 3; 2 years;
Diagnoses, according to DSM-III, R:
Early onset Pervasive Developmental
Disorder: 21 Ss = 70.00% ;
Late onset Pervasive Developmental Disorder:
4 Ss = 13.33% ;
Atypical Pervasive Developmental Disorder: 5
Ss = 16.67% .
Table 1: Comparison of the length of the
therapies.
|
Group /length |
PDG Ss |
% |
PnDG Ss |
% |
<>% |
|
1. from 3 to 6 months |
2 |
5.41 |
4 |
13.33 |
+7.92 |
|
2. from 7 to 12 months |
4 |
10.81 |
7 |
23.33 |
+12.52 |
|
3. from 13 to 24 months |
10 |
27.03 |
5 |
16.67 |
-10.36 |
|
4. from 25 to 36 months |
8 |
21.62 |
3 |
10.00 |
-11.62 |
|
5. from 37 to 60 months |
5 |
13.51 |
7 |
23.34 |
+9.83 |
|
6. from + 60 months |
8 |
21.62 |
4 |
13.33 |
-8.29 |
|
Totals |
37 |
100.00 |
30 |
100.00 |
0.00 |
Chi Square = 6.43 with 5
dfl.; .30 > p > .20; N.S.
Table 2: PDG, risults on verbal language,
before (bef.) and after (aft.) therapy.
.
|
|
Echolaly |
Performs commands |
Uses new words. |
Pronoun reversal |
Says "yes" |
Spontaneous speech |
||||||||||
|
Group |
|
simple |
double |
|
For asking |
For telling |
||||||||||
|
S. nr. |
Bef. |
Aft. |
Bef. |
Aft. |
Bef. |
Aft. |
Bef. |
Aft |
Bef. |
Aft. |
Bef. |
Aft. |
Bef. |
Aft |
Bef. |
Aft |
|
Gr. 1. (3-6 months therapy) |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
182 |
4 |
4 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
353 |
3 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
Gr. 2 (7-12 months therapy) |
||||||||||||||||
|
32 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
34 |
3 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 (*) |
|
316 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
332 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
Gr. 3 (13-24 months therapy) |
||||||||||||||||
|
124 |
1 |
3 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
173 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
186 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
289 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
325 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
330 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
333 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
345 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
430 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
455 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Gr. 4 (25-36 months therapy) |
||||||||||||||||
|
93 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
101 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
2 (*) |
|
120 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
191 |
3 |
4 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
225 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
281 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 (* |
|
319 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
433 |
3 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 @ |
|
Gr. 5. (37-60 months therapy) |
||||||||||||||||
|
85 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
268 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
308 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
372 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
400 |
4 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Gr. 6. (61-100 months therapy) |
||||||||||||||||
|
7 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
2 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
2 @ |
|
49 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
3 |
|
206 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
3 @ |
|
217 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
226 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
2 @ |
|
242 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
284 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
312 |
4 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 (#) |
|
P |
|
.06 |
|
.001 |
|
.001 |
|
.001 |
|
.06 |
|
.06 |
|
.06 |
|
.06 |
(*) therapy interrupted by
the parents. (@) Not yet psychotic. (#) Case escaped the previous surveys.
Table 3: PnDG, risults on verbal language,
before (bef.) and after (aft.) therapy.
|
|
Echolaly |
Performs commands |
Uses new words. |
Pronoun reversal |
Says "yes" |
Spontaneous speech |
||||||||||
|
Group |
|
Simple |
double |
|
For asking |
For telling |
||||||||||
|
S. nr.. |
Bef. |
Aft. |
Bef. |
Aft. |
Bef. |
Aft. |
Bef. |
Aft |
Bef. |
Aft. |
Bef. |
Aft. |
Bef. |
Aft |
Bef. |
Aft |
|
Gr. 1. (3-6 months therapy) |
|
|||||||||||||||
|
F |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
M |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
M |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
M |
4 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Gr. 2. (7-12 months therapy) |
||||||||||||||||
|
M |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
M |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
M |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
M |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
F |
2 |
1 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
F |
3 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
M |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Gr. 3. (13-24 months therapy) |
||||||||||||||||
|
F (#) |
0 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
F |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
M |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
F |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
M |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
Gr. 4. (25-36 months therapy) |
||||||||||||||||
|
17 |
4 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
3 @ |
|
18 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
|
19 |
2 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
Gr.5. (37-60 months therapy) |
||||||||||||||||
|
M |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
M |
0 |
0 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
F |
0 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
F |
2 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
3 @ |
|
F |
0 |
0 |
1 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 (*) |
|
F |
3 |
1 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
|
F |
4 |
1 |
2 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
3 |
1 |
3 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
2 |
|
Gr. 6. (61-106 months therapy) |
||||||||||||||||
|
27 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
3 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
28 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
3 @ |
|
29 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
4 |
0 |
3 @ |
|
30 |
3 |
1 |
1 |
4 |
1 |
3 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
P |
|
.06 |
|
.001 |
|
.001 |
|
.06 |
|
.06 |
|
.06 |
|
.06 |
|
.06 |
(*) therapy interrupted;
(#) Rett's syndrome (diagnosis mmade during drug therapy); (@) not yet
psychotic.
Table 4: comparison of the results on verbal
language, according to the length of therapy; keys (+) = any degree improvement
in at least two of the investigated areas; (=) = fully inadequate.
|
Group |
PDG |
PnDG |
PDG |
PnDG |
PDG |
PnDG |
PDG |
PnDG |
PDG |
PnDG |
PDG |
PnDG |
|
Ther. Months |
6 |
12 |
24 |
36 |
60 |
94 |
||||||
|
Nr. of Ss |
2 |
4 |
4 |
7 |
10 |
5 |
8 |
3 |
5 |
7 |
8 |
4 |
|
Evaluation |
+ / = |
+ / = |
+ / = |
+ / = |
+ / = |
+/ = |
+ / = |
+ / = |
+ / = |
+ / = |
+ / = |
+ / = |
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Verb. languag |
0 / 2 |
4 / 0 |
2 / 2 |
6 / 1 |
7 / 3 |
4 / 1 |
5 / 3 |
3 / 0 |
3 / 2 |
5 / 2 |
8 / 0 |
4 / 0 |
|
% of + results |
.00 |
1.00 |
.50 |
.85 |
.70 |
.80 |
.62 |
1.00 |
.60 |
.71 |
1.00 |
1.00 |
Table 5: Comparison of the results achieved
in single areas of verbal language, according to the length of therapy; keys:
(+) = improvement (any degree), (=) = fully inadequate.
|
Group |
PDG |
PnDG |
PDG |
PnDG |
PDG |
PnDG |
PDG |
PnDG |
PDG |
PnDG |
PDG |
PnDG |
|
Ther. Months |
6 |
12 |
24 |
36 |
60 |
94 |
||||||
|
Nr. of Ss (max-min) |
2 |
4 - 3 |
4 -3 |
7 - 2 |
10 - 6 |
5 |
8 -3 |
3 - 2 |
5 - 4 |
7 - 3 |
8 - 5 |
4 - 3 |
|
Evaluation |
+ / = |
+ / = |
+ / = |
+ / = |
+ / = |
+ / = |
+/ = |
+ / = |
+ / = |
+ / = |
+ / = |
+ / = |
|
|
||||||||||||
|
Echolaly |
0 / 2 |
4 / 3 |
4 / 3 |
7 / 2 |
10 / 6 |
5 / 0 |
8 / 3 |
3 / 2 |
5 / 4 |
7 / 3 |
8 / 5 |
4 / 3 |
|
Und. simp.com. |
2 / 0 |
2 / 2 |
2 / 2 |
7 / 0 |
8 / 2 |
3 / 1 |
7 7 1 |
3 / 0 |
4 / 1 |
7 / 0 |
8 / 4 |
4 / 0 |
|
Und. doub. Com. |
0 / 2 |
3 / 1 |
2 / 2 |
5 / 2 |
5 / 5 |
1 / 4 |
4 - 4 |
3 / 0 |
3 / 2 |
4 / 3 |
8 / 0 |
4 / 0 |
|
New words. |
1 / 1 |
1 / 3 |
2 / 2 |
5 / 2 |
6 / 4 |
4 / 1 |
5 / 3 |
2 / 1 |
3 / 2 |
4 / 3 |
7 / 1 |
3 / 1 |
|
Pron. reversal |
0 / 2 |
1 / 3 |
1 / 3 |
1 / 6 |
2 / 8 |
0 / 5 |
2 / 6 |
2 / 1 |
3 / 2 |
3 / 4 |
6 / 2 |
2 / 2 |
|
Says "yes" |
0 / 2 |
0 / 4 |
1 / 3 |
0 / 7 |
1 / 9 |
0 / 5 |
2 / 6 |
2 / 1 |
2 / 3 |
3 / 4 |
6 / 2 |
2 / 2 |
|
Asks |
0 / 2 |
1 / 3 |
2 / 2 |
2 / 5 |
4 / 6 |
1 / 4 |
4 / 4 |
2 / 3 |
2 / 3 |
3 / 4 |
7 / 1 |
2 / 2 |
|
Tells |
0 / 2 |
0 / 4 |
1 / 3 |
0 / 7 |
0 /10 |
0 / 5 |
2 / 6 |
1 / 3 |
1 / 4 |
3 / 4 |
5 / 3 |
2 / 2 |
|
% + results |
.19 |
.35 |
.42 |
.43 |
.37 |
.29 |
.47 |
.74 |
.54 |
.58 |
.85 |
.71 |
Table 6: % comparison of positive results,
according to the investigated area.
|
Group |
Echolaly |
Performs commands |
Uses new words |
Pronoun reversal |
Says "yes" |
Spontaneous speech for |
||
|
Months of therapy |
|
simple |
double |
|
|
|
asking |
telling |
|
6. PDG (2 Ss) |
0 |
2 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
6. PnDG (4-3 Ss) |
3 |
2 |
3 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
|
12. PDG (4-3 Ss) |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
12.PnDG (7-2 Ss) |
1 |
7 |
5 |
5 |
1 |
0 |
2 |
0 |
|
24.PDG (10-6 Ss) |
3 |
8 |
5 |
6 |
2 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
|
24.PnDG (5-0 Ss) |
4 |
1 |
4 |
0 |
0 |
1 |
0 |
0 |
|
36. PDG (8-3 Ss) |
2 |
6 |
4 |
5 |
2 |
2 |
4 |
2 |
|
36.PnDG (3-2 Ss) |
2 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
60. PDG (5-4 Ss) |
3 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
1 |
|
60.PnDG (7-3 Ss) |
3 |
6 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
|
+60 PDG (8-5 Ss) |
5 |
8 |
8 |
7 |
6 |
6 |
7 |
5 |
|
+60PnDG (4-3 Ss) |
3 |
4 |
4 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
|
% of + results |
.65 |
.81 |
.59 |
.65 |
.38 |
.35 |
.57 |
.22 |
|
.80 |
.87 |
.67 |
.63 |
.27 |
.23 |
.33 |
.20 |
|
Discussion
Bearing in mind that the therapies are
individualised, as can be seen from the case outlined in detail (Cocchi 1990d),
the statistical analysis, although more advanced, is mainly descriptive, so much
so that for each case the clinical evaluation of the results has been reported
here (Tables 2-3). It should also be noted that 3 cases of the PNDG and 1 of
the PDG have been cited in other papers, and so 3 have also been evaluated by
external observers (Bondanini, 1990; Grasso Rossetti, 1990; Cocchi, 1990d) and
one by means of laboratory parameters (Cocchi, 1990a).
As far as the length of the therapy is
concerned, regarding the many cases where it was stopped, I must confirm here
what has already stated in the previ-ous research (Cocchi, 1990b); the lack of
some results was the reason for it only in very few cases.
The length of therapy for the two groups
does not significantly differs (Table 1). The effect that drug therapy has on
verbal language in both groups seems to be dependent on the length of the
therapy itself (Tables 4-5). It is as well to make this statement cautiously in
the case of the PDG because the numerous interruptions which occurred in the
therapy may possibly have singled out the better subjects whose parents felt
more motivated to continue the treatment being undertaken. This caution is not
so necessary when consider-ing the PNDG as there were fewer overall
interruptions in treatment. The effect of drug therapy has proven to be statistically
significant in the areas of execution of simple and double commands as well as
in the use of new words as far as the Down group is concerned (Table 2). In the
PNDG significance was only achieved in the case of execution of single and
double commands (Table 3).
The overall percentage of positive results
in tables 5-6 for echolalia have been calculated on the basis of the number of
subjects in which that particular behaviour was present. according to tables
2-3.
However long the therapy was maintained, it
did not produce results in every subjects (Table 4), and neither was the total
erasure of echolalia always achieved.
The recovery and/or development of verbal
language seems to be a difficult ob-jective to reach, particularly in its
verbal production aspects. Here too we find confirmation that psychotic Down
children show less overall improvement that non-Downs, or if they do improve,
they do so at a slower rate (Table 4). This fact is in keeping with the finding
that language development in non psychotic Down subjects is still a complex
goal and not always reached (Buckley et al., 1986). From the results achieved
we can suggests, for now, that the most frequent acquisition are those
concerning comprehension of the spoken language, the use of new words and the
use of verbal language for asking purposes.
Phenomena such as the correct use of
"yes" and the use of language for telling seem to be complex
abilities and therefore more difficult to recover. However, the fact that these
also showed positive progress in the 8 subjects which came out of their
psychotic states, leads us to deduce that the drug therapy administered needs
further individualised specification and modification.
Conclusion
A comparative evaluation of the results of
individualised drug therapies on the reduction of echolalia and on the recovery
and/or development of verbal language in one group of psychotic Down children
and another group of psychotic on-Down children has brought to light common
elements of undeniable interest.
The results seem to run parallel to the
length of time the therapy was undertaken. The reduction of echolalia and
improvement in the various aspects of verbal language investigated show similar
trends in both groups.
The improvement rate, slower in the Down
children, must be considered in the light of the usual difficulties they
encounter in verbal language acquisition even in the absence of childhood
psychosis.
Acknowledgement
This research was supported by a grant
no. PSS */0201/00 of the Commission of European Communities, Bruxelles.
References
American Psychiatric Association: Diagnostic
and Statistic Manual of Mental Disorders (3rd edition revised,
DSM-III, R). APA, Washington D.C., 1987. Bondanini M.: Storia di Nicola, che
cerca il sole. Riv. It. Disturbo Intellet. 1990, 3: 95-101.
Buckley S., Emslie M.. Haslegrave g.,
LePrevost P., The develpment of language and reading skills in children with
Down's syndrome. PDSP, Portsmouth 1986.
Cocchi R.: Aminoacidi plasmatici in una
bambina autistica prima e dopo 7 anni di farmacoterapia. Riv. It. Disturbo
Intellet. 1990a, 3: 127-130.
Cocchi R.: The pharmacological approach to
treating childhood psychoses: Theoretical basis. It. J. Intellect. Impair.
1990b, 3: 185-193.
Cocchi R.: Childhood psychoses: Results of
drug treatment with Down and non-Down subjects. It. J. Intellect. Impair.
1990c, 3: 195-202.
Cocchi R.: Autismo infantile e sordita' di
trasmissione. Si puo' supporre una relazione temporale diversa? Riv. It.
Disturbo Intellet. 1990d, 3: 313-320.
Cocchi R.: Childhood psychoses: Results of
drug treatment on the social behaviour of Down and non-Down subjects. It. J.
Intellect. Impair. 1991a, 4: 15-22.
Cocchi R.: Childhood psychoses: Results of
drug treatment on the school achievement of Down and non-Down subjects. It. J.
Intellect. Impair. 1991b, 4: 23-30.
Cocchi R.: Childhood psychoses: Results of
drug treatment on stereotyping behaviours of Down and non-Down subjects. It. J.
Intellect. Impair. 1991c, 4: 159-166.
Grasso Rossetti A.: Il disegno della casa e
della figura umana in due soggetti psicotici trattati con farmacoterapia. Riv.
It. Disturbo Intellet. 1990, 3: 119-126.
Printed on It. J. Intellect. Impair. 1991, 4: 167-174.
Author's address: dr Renato COCCHI, via
Rabbeno, 3
42100 Reggio Emilia (Italy)
renatococchi@libero.it