Effects of the Narrative Intervention Program for Preschool Portuguese Children

Lourenço, Isabel; Rocha, Joana; Peixoto, Vânia; Lousada, Marisa

doi:10.1159/000496793

Cited by 3 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Language‐only interventions were reported to impact on both speech production and language in two RCT studies (Fey et al., 1994; Tyler et al., 2002). In contrast to this, Lourenco et al.’s (2020) cohort study reported that narrative intervention had a less marked impact on speech. This cohort study included a control group that could access non‐intervention specific speech and language therapy support; however, the nature of this intervention is not stated.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…The intervention comparators varied between studies; however, this was not unexpected due the differing study designs. Two studies (one RCT and one cohort) contained control groups who were free to receive support elsewhere (Lourenco et al., 2020; Yoder et al., 2005). The other cohort study (Tyler & Sandoval, 1994) used pre‐ and post‐intervention measures, and mid‐intervention generalization probes.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The most common measure for this was mean length of utterance in morphemes (MLUm) (Combiths et al, 2019;Hoffman et al, 1996;Tyler et al, 2002Tyler et al, , 2011Tyler & Sandoval, 1994;Tyler & Watterson, 1991;Yoder et al, 2005). Alternative and additional measures of expressive language included mean length of utterance in words (MLUw) (Lourenco et al, 2020), the developmental sentence score (DSS) (Fey et al, 1994), finite morpheme composite (FMC) (Tyler et al, 2003(Tyler et al, , 2011, and the results/scores of individual morpheme and/or morphophonological probes elicited before, during and/or after the intervention (Combiths et al, 2019;Tyler & Sandoval, 1994). One study focused on developing semantic complexity levels with pre-and post-intervention probes (Bellon-Harn et al, 2004).…”

Section: Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…One of the articles reported on Portuguese-speaking participants (Lourenco et al, 2020), with the other 10 involving English speaking participants. Six articles were RCTs (Fey et al, 1994;Tyler & Watterson, 1991;Tyler et al, 2002Tyler et al, , 2003Tyler et al, , 2011Yoder et al, 2005), two were case reports (Combiths et al, 2019;Hoffman et al, 1996), two were cohort studies (Lourenco et al, 2020;Tyler & Sandoval, 1994), and one was described as a case series (Bellon-Harn et al, 2004). Four of the six RCTs did not contain a control group but used randomized allocation into two experimental groups (Tyler & Watterson, 1991;Tyler et al, 2002Tyler et al, , 2003Tyler et al, , 2011.…”

Section: Characteristics Of Sources Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Focused stimulation was a common intervention technique targeting language (Tyler et al, 2002;Tyler & Sandoval, 1994). However, many of the studies also outlined how the same type of technique might be used to address both speech and language, such as auditory awareness used to heighten children's awareness of sounds and/or grammatical forms (Tyler et al, 2002(Tyler et al, , 2003(Tyler et al, , 2011, drilling (Fey et al, 1994), focused stimulation (Fey et al, 1994;Tyler et al, 2003), and narrative/story retell (Lourenco et al, 2020;Tyler & Sandoval, 1994).…”

Section: Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Interventions for pre‐school children with co‐occurring phonological speech sound disorder and expressive language difficulties: A scoping review

Rodgers

Harding

Rees

et al. 2022

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Recent evidence suggests that pre‐school children with co‐occurring phonological speech sound disorder (SSD) and expressive language difficulties are at a higher risk of ongoing communication and literacy needs in comparison with children with these difficulties in isolation. However, to date there has been no systematic or scoping review of the literature specific to interventions for children with this dual profile. Aims To explore the evidence regarding interventions for pre‐school children with co‐occurring phonological SSD and expressive language difficulties, including the content/delivery of such interventions, areas of speech and language targeted, and a broad overview of study quality. Methods & Procedures A scoping review methodology was used in accordance with the guidance from the Joanna Briggs Institute. Following a systematic search of Ovid Medline, Ovid Emcare, OVID Embase, CINAHL, Psychinfo and ERIC, 11 studies were included in the review. A researcher‐developed data extraction form was used to extract specific information about each intervention, with the JBI appraisal tools used to provide a broad overview of the quality of each study. Main contribution Included papers consisted of six randomized controlled trials (RCTs), two cohort studies, two case studies and one case series. Interventions fell into two main categories: (1) integrated interventions that combined content for both speech and language targets and/or explicitly used the same type of technique to improve both domains; and (2) single‐domain interventions that explicitly included content to target speech or language only, but also aimed to improve the other domain indirectly. Study quality varied, with detail on the content, context and delivery of interventions often underspecified, hampering the replication and clinical applicability of findings. Conclusions & Implications Early emerging evidence was identified to support both integrated speech and language interventions as well as single‐domain interventions. However, caution should be exercised due to the variation in the quality and level of detail reported for the interventions. Future intervention studies may seek to address this by reporting in accordance with Template for Intervention Description and Replication (TIDieR) reporting guidelines. This approach would enable clinicians to consider the applicability of the intervention to individual children within differing settings. What this paper adds What is already known on the subject Pre‐school children with co‐occurring phonological SSD and expressive language difficulties frequently present within speech and language therapy services. These children are at a higher risk of long‐term communication and literacy difficulties compared with children with these needs in isolation. Some emerging evidence suggests that interventions for children with this co‐occurring profile may exist within the literature; however, this evidence may not be known to clinicians in everyday practice. What this paper adds to e...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Characteristics Of Sources Of Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Conceptmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Interventions for pre‐school children with co‐occurring phonological speech sound disorder and expressive language difficulties: A scoping review

Rodgers

Harding

Rees

et al. 2022

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

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

Early Literacy Intervention Program

Peixoto,

Alegria,

Pestana

2023

Closing the Educational Achievement Gap for Students With Learning Disabilities

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A child's early literacy experiences have a long-term impact on reading and writing ability and academic success. Children with more and diverse literacy experiences are at a clear advantage to do better in school. Given that socioeconomic adversity is negatively correlated with children's language development, rich literacy experiences become even more relevant in this population. Children who enter primary school with fewer emergent literacy skills often continue to struggle to achieve academic success and are more likely to be unemployed as adults, hence the need to act from a prevention perspective by universally promoting these skills in preschool children is fundamental. The authors present as an intervention proposal, an emergent literacy program especially targeted to socially disadvantaged pre-school age children. In this program, mediated through storytelling, several emergent literacy skills will be worked on, namely vocabulary, conventions about print, narrative structure, phonological awareness, the child's concept as a reader, and motivation for writing.

show abstract

Effects of the Narrative Intervention Program for Preschool Portuguese Children

Cited by 3 publications

References 30 publications

Interventions for pre‐school children with co‐occurring phonological speech sound disorder and expressive language difficulties: A scoping review

Interventions for pre‐school children with co‐occurring phonological speech sound disorder and expressive language difficulties: A scoping review

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

Early Literacy Intervention Program

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About