No abstract

Purpose-A randomized controlled trial (RCT) was conducted to compare the language and auditory processing outcomes of children assigned to Fast ForWord-Language (FFW-L) to the outcomes of children assigned to nonspecific or specific language intervention comparison treatments that did not contain modified speech.Method-Two hundred and sixteen children between the ages of 6 and 9 years with language impairments were randomly assigned to one of four arms: Fast ForWord-Language (FFW-L), academic enrichment (AE), computer-assisted language intervention (CALI), or individualized language intervention (ILI) provided by a speech-language pathologist. All children received 1 hour and 40 minutes of treatment, 5 days per week, for 6 weeks. Language and auditory processing measures were administered to the children by blinded examiners before treatment, immediately after treatment, 3 months after treatment, and 6 months after treatment.Results-The children in all four arms improved significantly on a global language test and a test of backward masking. Children with poor backward masking scores who were randomized to the FFW-L arm did not present greater improvement on the language measures than children with poor backward masking scores who were randomized to the other three arms. Effect sizes, analyses of standard error of measurement, and normalization percentages supported the clinical significance of NIH Public Access (Wagner, Torgesen, & Rashotte, 1999). Participants in the FFW-L and CALI arms earned higher phonological awareness scores than children in the ILI and AE arms at the six-month follow-up testing. Conclusion-FastForWord-Language, the language intervention that provided modified speech to address a hypothesized underlying auditory processing deficit, was not more effective at improving general language skills or temporal processing skills than a nonspecific comparison treatment (AE) or specific language intervention comparison treatments (CALI and ILI) that did not contain modified speech stimuli. These findings call into question the temporal processing hypothesis of language impairment and the hypothesized benefits of using acoustically modified speech to improve language skills. The finding that children in the three treatment arms and the active comparison arm made clinically relevant gains on measures of language and temporal auditory processing informs our understanding of the variety of intervention activities that can facilitate development.Approximately seven percent of all school-age children have unusual difficulty learning and using language despite adequate hearing, nonverbal intelligence, and motor abilities (Tomblin, Records, & Zhang, 1996). This difficulty, which has been referred to by a variety of terms including language impairment, language-learning disability, specific language impairment, and language-learning impairment, can have serious social, academic, and vocational ramifications (Brinton, Spackman, Fujiki, & Ricks, 2007;Catts, Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2002;Clegg, Hollis, M...

Singly, all three neonatal hearing screening tests resulted in low refer rates, especially if referrals for follow-up were made only for the cases in which stopping criteria were not met in both ears. Following a protocol similar to that recommended in the National Institutes of Health (1993) Consensus Conference report resulted in refer rates that were less than 4%. TEOAEs at 80 dB pSPL, DPOAE at L1 = 65, L2 = 50 dB SPL and ABR at 30 dB nHL measured during the neonatal period, and as implemented in the current study, performed similarly at predicting behavioral hearing status at 8 to 12