A systematic meta‐analytic review of evidence for the effectiveness of the ‘Fast ForWord’ language intervention program

Strong, Gemma K.; Torgerson, Carole; Torgerson, David; Hulme, Charles

doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02329.x

Cited by 137 publications

(85 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In order to treat dyslexia, Fast ForWord uses a set of computer programmes that trains children on processing sounds in an attempt to ameliorate this deficit. Although all three imaging studies were taken to support this approach, a detailed meta-analysis of behavioral outcomes showed no benefit to this form of instruction (Strong, Torgerson, Torgerson, & Hulme, 2011). Another of the neuroimaging studies claimed that a programme called "Earobics" designed to improve reading improves the cortical representation of speech.…”

Section: Practical Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience.

Bowers¹

2016

Psychological Review

188

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The core claim of educational neuroscience is that neuroscience can improve teaching in the classroom. Many strong claims are made about the successes and the promise of this new discipline. By contrast, I show that there are no current examples of neuroscience motivating new and effective teaching methods, and argue that neuroscience is unlikely to improve teaching in the future. The reasons are twofold. First, in practice, it is easier to characterize the cognitive capacities of children on the basis of behavioral measures than on the basis of brain measures. As a consequence, neuroscience rarely offers insights into instruction above and beyond psychology. Second, in principle, the theoretical motivations underpinning educational neuroscience are misguided, and this makes it difficult to design or assess new teaching methods on the basis of neuroscience. Regarding the design of instruction, it is widely assumed that remedial instruction should target the underlying deficits associated with learning disorders, and neuroscience is used to characterize the deficit. However, the most effective forms of instruction may often rely on developing compensatory (nonimpaired) skills. Neuroscience cannot determine whether instruction should target impaired or nonimpaired skills. More importantly, regarding the assessment of instruction, the only relevant issue is whether the child learns, as reflected in behavior. Evidence that the brain changed in response to instruction is irrelevant. At the same time, an important goal for neuroscience is to characterize how the brain changes in response to learning, and this includes learning in the classroom. Neuroscientists cannot help educators, but educators can help neuroscientists.

show abstract

Section: Practical Problemsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience.

Bowers¹

2016

Psychological Review

188

127

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…As a critical component of this programme, a speech processing algorithm was devised to slow down speech and enhance rapid transitions [14]. This programme was subsequently commercialized as remediation for language-learning impairments [15] though its efficacy has been strongly contested [16,17].…”

Section: Temporal Theories Of Developmental Language Disordersmentioning

confidence: 99%

From temporal processing to developmental language disorders: mind the gap

Protopapas

2014

Phil. Trans. R. Soc. B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ‘rapid temporal processing’ and the ‘temporal sampling framework’ hypotheses have been proposed to account for the deficits in language and literacy development seen in specific language impairment and dyslexia. This paper reviews these hypotheses and concludes that the proposed causal chains between the presumed auditory processing deficits and the observed behavioural manifestation of the disorders are vague and not well established empirically. Several problems and limitations are identified. Most data concern correlations between distantly related tasks, and there is considerable heterogeneity and variability in performance as well as concerns about reliability and validity. Little attention is paid to the distinction between ostensibly perceptual and metalinguistic tasks or between implicit and explicit modes of performance, yet measures are assumed to be pure indicators of underlying processes or representations. The possibility that diagnostic categories do not refer to causally and behaviourally homogeneous groups needs to be taken seriously, taking into account genetic and neurodevelopmental studies to construct multiple-risk models. To make progress in the field, cognitive models of each task must be specified, including performance domains that are predicted to be deficient versus intact, testing multiple indicators of latent constructs and demonstrating construct reliability and validity.

show abstract

“…4,5 Unfortunately, benefits to receptive language difficulties are less clear, and some interventions may even be contraindicated. 6 A related area of development that clearly shares common factors, is phonics, and specifically the role that this plays in the development of preliteracy skills. 7,8 Oral language and literacy are closely linked from a developmental perspective, and it is a reasonable assumption that intervening for the former may also benefit the latter.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Two-Year Outcomes of a Population-Based Intervention for Preschool Language Delay: An RCT

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

OBJECTIVE: We have previously shown short-term benefits to phonology, letter knowledge, and possibly expressive language from systematically ascertaining language delay at age 4 years followed by the Language for Learning intervention. Here, we report the trial's definitive 6-year outcomes.METHODS: Randomized trial nested in a population-based ascertainment. Children with language scores .1.25 SD below the mean at age 4 were randomized, with intervention children receiving 18 1-hour home-based therapy sessions. Primary outcome was receptive/expressive language. Secondary outcomes were phonological, receptive vocabulary, literacy, and narrative skills; parent-reported pragmatic language, behavior, and health-related quality of life; costs of intervention; and health service use. For intention-to-treat analyses, trial arms were compared using linear regression models.RESULTS: Of 1464 children assessed at age 4, 266 were eligible and 200 randomized; 90% and 82% of intervention and control children were retained respectively. By age 6, mean language scores had normalized, but there was little evidence of a treatment effect for receptive (adjusted mean difference 2.3; 95% confidence interval [CI] -1.2 to 5.7; P = .20) or expressive (0.8; 95% CI -1.6 to 3.2; P = .49) language. Of the secondary outcomes, only phonological awareness skills (effect size 0.36; 95% CI 0.08-0.65; P = .01) showed benefit. Costs were higher for intervention families (mean difference AU $4276; 95% CI: $3424 to $5128).CONCLUSIONS: Population-based intervention targeting 4-year-old language delay was feasible but did not have lasting impacts on language, possibly reflecting resolution in both groups. Long-term literacy benefits remain possible but must be weighed against its cost.

show abstract

A systematic meta‐analytic review of evidence for the effectiveness of the ‘Fast ForWord’ language intervention program

Cited by 137 publications

References 27 publications

The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience.

The practical and principled problems with educational neuroscience.

From temporal processing to developmental language disorders: mind the gap

Two-Year Outcomes of a Population-Based Intervention for Preschool Language Delay: An RCT

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About