Evidence based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders

Ebbels, Susan; McCartney, Elspeth; Slonims, Vicky; Dockrell, Julie; Norbury, Courtenay

doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.2951

Cited by 14 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 74 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This research supports the recent review of evidence of effectiveness supporting the view that teacher-led interventions are appropriate for children with Tier 2 language status (defined as children with language weaknesses or vulnerabilities; Ebbels et al, 2019). In general our findings were modest and this may reflect the brevity and/or the limited impact of the intervention.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Feasibility and evaluation of Talk Boost KS2: A school-based programme for oral language skills in children with low-average communication skills in Key Stage 2

Reeves¹,

Freed

Wright

et al. 2019

Child Language Teaching and Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Oral language skills in childhood are known to predict literacy levels and academic performance. Identification of children’s low-average oral language skills in school is challenging when clear criteria for developmental language disorder are not met. There are few studies of targeted, school-based oral language interventions for the older child. This study aimed to investigate the feasibility of implementing and evaluating a manualized language intervention (Talk Boost KS2) for children aged between 7 and 9 years who were identified as having low-average oral language skills, as delivered by trained teaching assistants in mainstream schools. Twenty-one UK mainstream primary schools each selected eight Year 3 (7–8-year-olds) and Year 4 (8–9-year-olds) children with low-average oral language skills. School staff received training in a new manualized intervention, Talk Boost KS2. Schools were allocated to an Active Intervention (AI) or a Waiting Control condition (WC) condition. The final sample consisted of 162 children of which 87 were allocated to the AI condition and 75 to the WC condition. Progress in favour of the intervention was found on teacher ratings of speech, language and communication needs and on a Learning Behaviours Checklist but not on standardized language or reading comprehension tests. Parents of AI children reported improvements in communication and language skills. Teaching staff reported significant increases in confidence and knowledge in managing children with low-average oral language skills as a result of being involved in the intervention. The findings are discussed in relation to the imperative to provide practical language intervention tools as well as training and support for education staff in order to support children with low-average oral language skills in mainstream schools.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 83%

Feasibility and evaluation of Talk Boost KS2: A school-based programme for oral language skills in children with low-average communication skills in Key Stage 2

Reeves¹,

Freed

Wright

et al. 2019

Child Language Teaching and Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This tension is perhaps unsurprising: the complexity of the balance between providing specialist education and facilitating inclusion is well documented (Lindsay, 2018). Staff interviewees discussed the balance between providing a whole-school inclusive environment for language development, and the need for specialist, individually tailored interventions (Ebbels et al, 2017), which is a significant issue for commissioning services in the UK.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Staff focused on collaboration within the staff team. Parents described the role of staff in creating a positive environment and providing access to specialist support, which has been shown to be beneficial (Ebbels et al, 2017). Two parents felt there was good communication with staff, a priority put forward in the Bercow Report (10 years on) (ICAN, 2018).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In a recent review of collaborative classroom practice, Archibald (2017) presents convincing evidence for the effectiveness of this approach for targeting vocabulary and phonological awareness, and highlights the need for SLT instruction to take place in natural environments such as classrooms so that new skills can generalize. Conducting intervention in the classroom has been found to be a greater predictor of response than intensity (Tambyraja et al, 2015), and new evidence suggests collaborative practice is a key element of successful intervention (Ebbels et al, 2017). Although the extent to which this occurs in language units is unknown, such findings illustrate key issues and priorities in supporting preschool children.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Specialist provision for language disorder: Staff and service user views of a preschool language unit

Harvey

Spencer

2019

Child Language Teaching and Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Language units are specialist educational settings that provide integrated speech and language therapy and curriculum delivery for children with severe language disorders within mainstream schools. This study presents an account of a preschool language unit (PLU) from the perspectives of children with language disorders currently in attendance, their parents, and teaching staff. Six child-led, multi-modal interviews, six parent questionnaires, and interviews with three members of staff were analysed using Framework Analysis (Ritchie et al., 2003). Results showed that staff and parents perceive that attending the PLU positively impacts the children, but raised concerns that accessing PLUs can be difficult due to number restrictions. Children valued play and friendships within the PLU, while parents valued the PLU’s role in supporting communication and socialization. This study offers a unique account of how a PLU supports children with language disorders from the perspectives of children, parents and staff.

show abstract

“…The advantage of presenting trial results in such a transparent, timely, and intelligible manner is that it becomes possible for practitioners to interrogate research. In principle, pre/schools can decide whether or not to spend money on delivering named interventions (Ebbels, McCartney, Slonims, Dockrell, & Norbury, ). Just over half of the schools in the Fricke et al.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Commentary: So was it worth it? A commentary on Fricke et al. and Hagen et al. (2017)

McCartney

2017

Child Psychology Psychiatry

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fricke et al. and Hagen et al. (2017) each report on large‐scale pragmatic randomised controlled trials delivered in schools or nurseries, investigating language interventions for vulnerable children and showing moderate positive effect sizes. Such research is part of a recent development of ‘what works’ research in England, and the number of ‘what works’ trials continues to increase, largely through funding from the Sutton Trust, who are concerned with disadvantaged children, to the Educational Endowment Foundation (EEF). ‘What works’ research is not firmly accepted by all educationalists, however, results of trials are now available quickly and presented in a manner intended to be accessible to practitioners. This development may facilitate principled decisions on the adoption of interventions by schools, as trials and their outcomes may be interrogated to support decisions on whether the anticipated impact is worth the cost of implementation.

show abstract

Evidence based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders

Cited by 14 publications

References 74 publications

Feasibility and evaluation of Talk Boost KS2: A school-based programme for oral language skills in children with low-average communication skills in Key Stage 2

Feasibility and evaluation of Talk Boost KS2: A school-based programme for oral language skills in children with low-average communication skills in Key Stage 2

Specialist provision for language disorder: Staff and service user views of a preschool language unit

Commentary: So was it worth it? A commentary on Fricke et al. and Hagen et al. (2017)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About