This research explores the comprehension of wh-questions in children with ASD and SDLI, comparing their performance to typically developing children. Previous studies have examined language production and comprehension deficits in these populations, often focusing on English-speaking participants. This study addresses a gap in research by investigating wh-question comprehension in Jordanian Arabic-speaking children. Wh-movement, a key syntactic process involved in forming wh-questions, is a potential source of difficulty for children with language impairments. Understanding wh-questions requires processing syntactic dependencies and assigning thematic roles, which can be challenging for individuals with ASD and SDLI. The complexity of wh-questions, especially those involving object wh-movement, has been highlighted in prior research. While previous studies have explored the impact of hearing loss and age on wh-question comprehension, the current study focuses specifically on ASD and SDLI children's abilities within a Jordanian Arabic context. The study’s primary objective is to understand the challenges in comprehending wh-questions (specifically subject and object forms of “who” and “which” questions) among children with ASD and SDLI in comparison to typically developing peers and whether these challenges reveal similarities or differences in linguistic processing between the two clinical populations. This focus is crucial due to the paucity of research on wh-question comprehension among Arabic-speaking children with ASD and SDLI. The study hypothesizes that children with ASD and SDLI will exhibit difficulties with wh-questions, particularly object wh-questions, and that the pattern of difficulties will provide insights into the nature of their language impairments. The expected distinctions between subject and object wh-question performance, as observed in prior research, serve as a basis for comparing the performance of the ASD and SDLI groups with their typically developing peers. The results of this comparison will contribute to a better understanding of how language impairments manifest in these populations.

Extensive literature explores the overlap and differences in language difficulties between ASD and SDLI. Many studies focus on language production and comprehension in English-speaking populations. Language comprehension involves various skills, including identifying language, understanding complex sentences, and recalling word sequences. Syntactic movement, particularly wh-movement, is crucial for understanding questions. Difficulties processing syntactic dependencies are common in children and adults with language impairments. Previous research indicates challenges in comprehending sentences with wh-movement, particularly object wh-questions. Understanding multiple syntactic levels is especially challenging for those with language impairments. Studies on Palestinian Arabic speakers with hearing loss indicate problems with object-relative clauses and object wh-questions, suggesting the difficulty stems from the movement itself rather than embedding. Research also highlights that children with ASD exhibit a delayed acquisition of wh-question comprehension, though their overall language development might be comparable to typically developing peers. The relationship between autism and syntactic development is complex, with some studies suggesting no impairment in syntactic abilities compared to other language domains or peers with developmental delays. Existing research on Arabic sentence structure emphasizes the Subject-Verb-Object (SVO) and Verb-Subject-Object (VSO) orders and how wh-movement impacts question formation. Previous studies have investigated the role of age and hearing aids in wh-question comprehension. The literature emphasizes the complexity of wh-movement in sentence processing, particularly concerning the assignment of thematic roles and the understanding of traces left by moved constituents. Studies examining syntactic complexity in ASD reveal a correlation between nonverbal abilities and performance, rather than age, indicating a divergence in development compared to typically developing children. Finally, existing research points toward the need for more investigation into wh-question comprehension specifically within the context of Arabic-speaking children with ASD and SDLI.

This study employed a quantitative research design with a sample of 45 Jordanian children (aged 6-8 years): 15 with ASD, 15 with SDLI, and 15 typically developing (TD) children. Probability sampling was used to ensure equal chances of selection. Participants were assessed using a binary picture-selection task adapted from Friedmann and Novogrodsky (2011). The task comprised two sub-tasks: Task 1 involved selecting from two pictures, and Task 2 involved selecting from three pictures. Each task presented 40 questions, equally divided into "who" (subject and object) and "which" (subject and object) questions. The questions were presented in Jordanian Arabic. The process of translating the instrument into Arabic included multiple steps to ensure validity and reliability: translation by two Arabic translators, review by three bilingual experts, and a pilot test with seven postgraduate students and ten school children. Prior to conducting the main study, ethical approval was obtained from the Ministry of Social Development in Jordan, and the Research Ethical Board at Universiti Sains Malaysia. Informed consent was obtained from the legal guardians of all participants. Data were collected individually in quiet rooms, with no time limit and the opportunity for participants to repeat items. Data analysis utilized one-way repeated measures ANOVA to compare comprehension performance across the three groups for different question types (who-subject, who-object, which-subject, which-object) and tasks (two-figure, three-figure). Scheffe post-hoc tests were used for multiple comparisons.

The results of the one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed statistically significant differences in comprehension performance across the three groups for all question types in both the two-figure and three-figure tasks (p < 0.001). The ASD group consistently demonstrated significantly lower scores than the SDLI and TD groups across all question types. Specifically, mean scores for the ASD group were considerably lower than for the SDLI and TD groups for all question types in both tasks. Both the ASD and SDLI groups struggled significantly more with “which” questions than “who” questions, irrespective of whether they were subject or object questions. Notably, the ASD group exhibited better performance in the three-figure task than in the two-figure task, a finding that contrasted with the SDLI and TD groups who performed better in the two-figure task. The SDLI group, in general, demonstrated superior performance compared to the ASD group, showing more correct answers and higher levels of comprehension. However, both the SDLI and TD groups still showed better performance in the two-figure than the three-figure task. There were marked differences in correct answer rates across groups. TD children generally showed the highest rate of correct responses across all question types and tasks. The performance differences were statistically significant across groups for all types of questions, and the patterns of responses suggest particular difficulties in understanding “which” questions for all groups.

The findings confirm the hypothesis that children with ASD and SDLI experience significant challenges in comprehending wh-questions, particularly object wh-questions and “which” questions. The lower performance of both clinical groups compared to their TD peers suggests a shared difficulty in processing syntactic structures involving wh-movement. However, the SDLI group showed superior performance to the ASD group, implying different levels of language impairment. The better performance of ASD children in the three-figure task might suggest the use of visual processing strengths to compensate for language weaknesses, a pattern not seen in the SDLI and TD groups. This result is interesting and requires further investigation. The consistent difficulty with “which” questions across all groups might stem from the increased complexity of the movement required for these questions compared to “who” questions. The results align with previous research highlighting the challenges in comprehending questions involving object wh-movement. The significantly lower performance of the ASD group compared to the SDLI group underscores the unique aspects of language impairments in ASD. The observed differences between the two clinical groups highlight the need for differentiated intervention approaches tailored to the specific challenges faced by each group. Future research should explore other types of wh-questions, and further clarify the underlying mechanisms of difficulties in syntactic processing of wh-questions in ASD and SDLI and the interaction between language and non-verbal abilities.

This study demonstrates significant comprehension difficulties with wh-questions, especially object wh-questions and "which" questions, in Jordanian Arabic-speaking children with ASD and SDLI. The SDLI group outperformed the ASD group, and an unexpected better performance in three-figure tasks among the ASD group was observed. These findings suggest that both groups struggle with syntactic movement, but the nature and extent of difficulties differ. Further research should explore a broader range of wh-questions, investigate potential compensatory mechanisms, and examine developmental trajectories across different age groups.

The study's sample size, while adequate for statistical analysis, might limit generalizability to the wider Jordanian population. The use of a specific type of picture-selection task could influence the results, and other assessment methods might be beneficial in future studies. Cultural and linguistic factors specific to the Jordanian Arabic context should be considered when interpreting the results. The study only focused on a limited subset of wh-questions, which may not fully represent the comprehensive range of challenges encountered by these groups. The age range of the participants also presents a limitation in terms of generalizability. Further investigation into the role of various factors such as cognitive abilities and prior language exposure is warranted.