Assessing the Effects of a Parent-Implemented Language Intervention for Children With Language Impairments Using Empirical Benchmarks: A Pilot Study

Roberts, Megan Y.; Kaiser, Ann P.

doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0236)

Cited by 88 publications

(123 citation statements)

References 30 publications

(29 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

116

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…However, other quality ratings were less reliably reported. Intensity of recasts was reported for only 1/7 (14%) of the studies added (Roberts & Kaiser, 2012), and blinding was similarly reported for only 1/7 studies . Treatment fidelity was adequately reported for 3/7 (43%) studies.…”

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 51%

“…The seven Later Efficacy/Effectiveness studies included five package interventions and two recast-only interventions. In contrast to the previous analysis, only one of these studies (Roberts & Kaiser, 2012) compared the experimental group to an alternate-treatment control group. Note that Fey et al (1993) contributed two outcomes to the averages discussed here because of the study design; one participant group received recast-only intervention implemented by parents, and the other received a package intervention implemented by a clinician.…”

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 90%

“…Four of the eight outcome measures were found to exhibit a positive effect size significantly different from zero. These include three package interventions (Fey et al, 1993, clinician group;Roberts & Kaiser, 2012;Robertson & Ellis Weismer, 1999) and one recast-only intervention (Fey et al, 1993, parent group).…”

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 98%

“…First, the package interventions typically differ not only from recast-only interventions but also from each other. For example, the study by Roberts and Kaiser (2012) is an investigation of the efficacy of parentimplemented enhanced milieu teaching, whereas the study by involves an explicit teaching component in a school-based setting. Second, the package interventions included multiple goals across domains.…”

Section: Effects Of Recast-only Versus Package Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The package studies, which were exclusively examined in the meta-analysis, were primarily Later Efficacy studies (6/7) utilizing between-groups designs (7/7). The control groups were primarily no-treatment or wait-list group, with one group receiving business-as-usual treatments (Roberts & Kaiser, 2012). Due to the specific inclusionary and exclusionary criteria needed to allow for effect-size calculation of outcomes for children with LI, all of the package studies necessarily met the criteria of adequate participant descriptions and adequate description of the therapy.…”

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Small Groups, Big Gains: Efficacy of a Tier 2 Phonological Awareness Intervention With Preschoolers With Early Literacy Deficits

Kruse

Spencer

Olszewski

et al. 2015

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 51%

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: Effects Of Recast-only Versus Package Interventionsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Meta-analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Small Groups, Big Gains: Efficacy of a Tier 2 Phonological Awareness Intervention With Preschoolers With Early Literacy Deficits

Kruse

Spencer

Olszewski

et al. 2015

Am J Speech Lang Pathol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Oral language interventions can improve language outcomes in children with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

Donolato,

Toffalini,

Rogde

et al. 2023

Campbell Systematic Reviews

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundYoung people who fail to develop language as expected face significant challenges in all aspects of life. Unfortunately, language disorders are common, either as a distinct condition (e.g., Developmental Language Disorder) or as a part of another neurodevelopmental condition (e.g., autism). Finding ways to attenuate language problems through intervention has the potential to yield great benefits not only for the individual but also for society as a whole.ObjectivesThis meta‐analytic review examined the effect of oral language interventions for children with neurodevelopmental disorders.Search MethodsThe last electronic search was conducted in April 2022.Selection CriteriaIntervention studies had to target language skills for children from 2 to 18 years of age with Developmental Language Disorder, autism, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, and Williams syndrome in randomised controlled trials or quasi‐experimental designs. Control groups had to include business‐as‐usual, waiting list, passive or active conditions. However, we excluded studies in which the active control group received a different type, delivery, or dosage of another language intervention. Eligible interventions implemented explicit and structured activities (i.e., explicit instruction of vocabulary, narrative structure or grammatical rules) and/or implicit and broad activities (i.e., shared book reading, general language stimulation). The intervention studies had to assess language skills in receptive and/or expressive modalities.Data Collection and AnalysisThe search provided 8195 records after deduplication. Records were screened by title and abstract, leading to full‐text examinations of 448 records. We performed Correlated and Hierarchical Effects models and ran a retrospective power analysis via simulation. Publication bias was assessed via p‐curve and precision‐effect estimate.Main ResultsWe examined 38 studies, with 46 group comparisons and 108 effects comparing pre‐/post‐tests and eight studies, with 12 group comparisons and 21 effects at follow‐up. The results showed a mean effect size of d = 0.27 at the post‐test and d = 0.18 at follow‐up. However, there was evidence of publication bias and overestimation of the mean effects. Effects from the meta‐analysis were significantly related to these elements: (1) receptive vocabulary and omnibus receptive measures showed smaller effect sizes relative to expressive vocabulary, grammar, expressive and receptive discourse, and omnibus expressive tests; and (2) the length of the intervention, where longer sessions conducted over a longer period of time were more beneficial than brief sessions and short‐term interventions. Neither moderators concerning participants’ characteristics (children's diagnosis, diagnostic status, age, sex, and non‐verbal cognitive ability and severity of language impairment), nor those regarding of the treatment components and implementation of the language interventions (intervention content, setting, delivery agent, session structure of the intervention or total number of sessions) reached significance. The same occurred to indicators of study quality. The risk of bias assessment showed that reporting quality for the studies examined in the review was poor.Authors’ ConclusionsIn sum, the current evidence base is promising but inconclusive. Pre‐registration and replication of more robust and adequately powered trials, which include a wider range of diagnostic conditions, together with more long‐term follow‐up comparisons, are needed to drive evidence‐based practice and policy.

show abstract

A meta‐analysis on the effectiveness of intervention in children with primary speech and language delays/disorders: Focusing on China and the United States

Zhang

Joshi

2020

Clin Psychology and Psychoth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The purpose of this meta-analysis was to investigate the immediate and long-term effects of intervention for children with primary speech and language delays/disorders and to explore whether some characteristics of interventions, specifics of the study and research participants moderate the magnitude of the effectiveness of interventions. Using the random effect model, we pooled the effect size and conducted a publication bias evaluation, a moderating effect analysis in CMA 2.0. Results of a random effects model analysis demonstrated a moderate immediate effect (g = 0.70), whereas the long-term efficacy was small (g = 0.23). Additionally, type of measure, language of intervention, parental involvement, intervention content and study quality, as well as the duration of intervention, significantly moderated the effect size of intervention effectiveness.

show abstract

Assessing the Effects of a Parent-Implemented Language Intervention for Children With Language Impairments Using Empirical Benchmarks: A Pilot Study

Abstract: The results of this preliminary study indicate that parent-implemented interventions may be an effective treatment for children with expressive and receptive LI.

Cited by 88 publications

References 30 publications

Small Groups, Big Gains: Efficacy of a Tier 2 Phonological Awareness Intervention With Preschoolers With Early Literacy Deficits

Small Groups, Big Gains: Efficacy of a Tier 2 Phonological Awareness Intervention With Preschoolers With Early Literacy Deficits

Oral language interventions can improve language outcomes in children with neurodevelopmental disorders: A systematic review and meta‐analysis

A meta‐analysis on the effectiveness of intervention in children with primary speech and language delays/disorders: Focusing on China and the United States

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About