Psycholinguistic Training Programs: Are There Differential Treatment Effects?

Abstract

The findings of an investigation assessing the differential effects of psycholinguistic training programs are reported. Methodologically, meta-analysis, the analysis of analyses, was used to determine whether psycholinguistic training programs differentially affect the abilities measured by the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA). When findings were integrated by ITPA subtests, ITPA constructs, and salient study features, the training programs were found to differ with respect to improving psycholinguistic abilities. Overall results, however, indicated that the Peabody Language Development Kits (PDLK) were more consistently advantageous than either ITPA related programs or other types of training activities (e.g. structured teaching and perceptual-motor approaches). These findings were validated in a multiple regression analysis comparing the three intervention methods. It was suggested that the structured and sequential nature of the PDLK was the major factor contributing to its greater effectiveness.

Characteristics of Meta-Analyses Reported in Mental Retardation, Learning Disabilities, and Emotional and Behavioral Disorders

“…Excluded from this review were less accessible meta-analyses found in books (e.g., Swanson, 1999); valuable reviews that were not meta-analyses (e.g., Bryen & Joyce, 1985;Buysse & Bailey, 1993); and studies that arguably have some bearing on MR, LD, and EBD but provided little to no information about whether students from these populations were included. Some examples of this are meta-analytic studies examining early language intervention (Scruggs, Mastropieri, Forness, & Kavale, 1988), early intervention with at-risk children (White, 1985-86;White & Casto, 1985), children's causal attributions for academic achievement (Whitley & Frieze, 1985), psycholinguistic training (Kavale, 1982c(Kavale, , 1984a, hyperactivity (Kavale, 1982a;Kavale & Forness, 1983), higher education (Kulik, Kulik, & Scwalb, 1983), or the relation of class size to achievement (Glass & Smith, 1979). Domain 3: Coding independent variables.…”

Does Cognitively Focused Instruction Improve the Academic Performance of Low-Achieving Students?

“…Varma, McCandliss, & Schwartz, 2008). Yet as far as we know, there has not been a systematic and comprehensive review of the literature pertaining to cognitively focused instruction since Kavale's (1982) review more than a quarter century ago. Thus, we suggest that recent claims made for and against cognitively focused instruction should be regarded cautiously.…”

On the Importance of a Cognitive Processing Perspective: An Introduction

“…It has a well-documented and checkered history in education (cf. Arter & Jenkins, 1979; The Consortium for Evidence-Based Early Intervention Practices, 2010; Fuchs, 2006;Hammill & Larsen, 1974;Kavale, 1982). But there are three reasons to resist rejecting it out of hand.…”