A Comparison of Service Delivery Models: Effects on Curricular Vocabulary Skills in the School Setting

Abstract

The present study evaluated the effectiveness of three service delivery models in the elementary school setting. Differences were investigated between (a) a collaborative approach, (b) a classroom-based intervention model with the speech-language pathologist (SLP) and classroom teachers working independently, and (c) a traditional pull-out model for children in kindergarten through third grade who qualified for speech or language services. The same curricular vocabulary targets and materials were used in all conditions. This study also examined the vocabulary skills of regular education children who participated in the collaborative approach, the independent classroom-based model, or received instruction from only classroom teachers, without the SLP’s involvement. Results indicated the collaborative model was more effective for teaching curricular vocabulary to students who qualified for speech or language services than a classroom-based model (teacher-SLP independent) or a traditional pull-out model. The findings for students who were not enrolled in speech or language services indicated the collaborative and classroom-based models increased vocabulary skills to a significantly greater degree than receiving only regular instruction from the classroom teacher. The results are congruent with the theoretical advantages of the collaborative model reported in the literature and support the use of integrated service delivery models for intervention in the school setting.

More research is needed to choose service delivery models for elementary-aged children with speech-language impairments

“…Each of these studies investigated the role of service delivery models on children's outcomes (i.e., vocabulary, functional communication, and language/literacy); no studies investigating the role of frequency/intensity met inclusion criteria for this review. Results across these five studies were mixed: two studies found service delivery models to have differential impacts on children's outcomes (see Bland & Prelock, 1995;Throneburg, Calvery, Sturm, Paramboukas, & Paul, 2000) while the other three found no significant differences (see Boyle, McCartney, Forbes, & O'Hare, 2007;Howlin, 1981;Kohl, Wilcox, & Karlan, 1978). There was preliminary evidence to suggest that classroom-based services may promote generalization of skills to novel settings; however, the most striking finding from this review was the glaring lack of high-quality, evidence-based research available to SLPs in choosing effective service-delivery models for school-age children with speech-language impairments.…”

Some (but still insufficient) evidence exists for language interventions for school-age children with developmental speech and language impairments

“…Mediated-learning and bridging strategies were shown to have positive effects on a verbal analogy task (Masterson & Perrey, 1999). Improvements on vocabulary performance were found with a collaborative, classroom-based service-delivery model when compared with the more traditional pull-out therapy approach (Throneburg, Calvert, Sturm, Paramboukas, & Paul, 2000). Interactive conversational reading strategies were also shown to have positive effects on receptive and expressive vocabulary (Crowe, 2003).…”

Evidence-based practice in speech language pathologist training of early childhood professionals

“…Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions INTRODUCTION One of the questions in speech language pathology (SLP) practice is how best to support children who attend formal child care. With resource constraints, there is a move from an individual or small group model of direct SLP practice to team teaching, consultation, and professional development of early childhood professionals (ECPs; McIntosh, Crosbie, Holm, Dodd, & Thomas, 2007;Throneburg, Calvert, Sturm, Paramboukas, & Paul, 2000). These latter indirect models of SLP practice reflect system-wide/population approaches and are due to factors such as SLP workforce shortages and the need for ECP training in the areas of language and literacy.…”