Improving the Social Communication Skills of At-Risk Preschool Children in a Play Context

Abstract

This study was designed to examine the effects of a three-component intervention on the social-communicative interactions of six preschool children at risk for language delays and behavior problems. In a multiple baseline design across three dyads, children were taught to (a) plan their play, (b) use conversational social interaction strategies, and (c) self-evaluate their play interactions. The number of socialcommunicative behaviors by each child increased following introduction of the intervention condition, as did their use of descriptive and request utterances during play sessions. Increases in linguistic complexity and diversity and play complexity also were associated with the intervention. This intervention holds promise for improving social, linguistic, and play behaviors in preschoolers at risk for language delays and behavior problems.Young children with social communication delays frequently have difficulty engaging with their peers in sustained interactions. To engage in social interactions

Evidence-based intervention for preschool children with primary speech and language impairments: Child Talk – an exploratory mixed-methods study

“…In total, 13 studies had < 10 participants. 134,138,139,154,170,173,178,179,181,183,184,185,187 However, overall, the sample size in this theme was relatively large compared with that in the other categories, with the mean number of children per study being 32.6 (median 15.5 children per study).…”

“…134 In total, 52 of the studies recruited child participants who had a language impairment. 32,70,134,[178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187] Two of the studies recruited children either with a language impairment or who were at risk of developing a language impairment. 32,134 Four studies recruited children 'at risk' of language delay/impairment.…”

“…In total, 26 papers (27 studies) were included in this theme, 70,134,135,[137][138][139]154,157,[168][169][170][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187] which looked at work that aimed to improve children's expressive language, in quantity, vocabulary or structure. DOI: 10.3310/pgfar03050 PROGRAMME GRANTS FOR APPLIED RESEARCH 2015 VOL.…”

“…Of these 27 studies, 25 included interventions to improve expressive language as the primary focus of the study. 70,135,137,139,154,157,169,170,[173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184][185][186][187] For two studies, 134,168 expressive language was a secondary focus of the study. The following list shows the various expressive language foci: l expressive and/or receptive language (10 papers representing 11 studies 70,134,135,175,176,[177][178][179][180][181] ) l language delay (three studies 182-184 ) l parental intervention for language delay (one study 174 ) l social communication/language (four studies 137,138,170,185 ) l phonological awareness (one study 168 ) l language and grammar (two studies 173,186 ) l teaching syntax (one study 154 ) l phonology and utt...…”

“…The following study designs were also used: case series (n = 1 154 ), multiple baseline across dyads (n = 4 138,170,184,185 ), single-subject alternating treatment design (n = 1 181 ), pre/post between groups (n = 4 135,176,180,182 ), between groups (n = 3 70,175,186 ), case study (n = 1 187 ), between groups, both comparison (n = 2 137,169 ) and between subjects with a crossover treatment design (n = 1 173 ).…”