ASHAWire
Advanced search
Skip main navigation
Close Drawer MenuOpen Drawer Menu
No AccessLanguage, Speech, and Hearing Services in SchoolsResearch Article1 Oct 2015

The Effectiveness of Two Grammar Treatment Procedures for Children With SLI: A Randomized Clinical Trial

    https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_LSHSS-14-0041

    Abstract

    Purpose

    This study compared the effectiveness of two grammar treatment procedures for children with specific language impairment.

    Method

    A double-blind superiority trial with cluster randomization was used to compare a cueing procedure, designed to elicit a correct production following an initial error, to a recasting procedure, which required no further production. Thirty-one 5-year-old children with specific language impairment participated in 8 small group, classroom-based treatment sessions. Fourteen children received the cueing approach and 17 received the recasting approach.

    Results

    The cueing group made significantly more progress over the 8-week treatment period than the recasting group. There was a medium–large treatment effect in the cueing group and a negligible effect size in the recasting group. The groups did not differ in maintenance of treatment effects 8 weeks after treatment. In single-subject analyses, 50% of children in the cueing group and 12% in the recasting group showed a significant treatment effect. Half of these children maintained the treatment effect 8 weeks later.

    Conclusion

    Treatment that used a structured cueing hierarchy designed to elicit a correct production following a child's error resulted in significantly greater improvement in expressive grammar than treatment that provided a recast following an error.

    Supplemental Material

    https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.6170285

    References

    • Accardo, P. J., & Capute, A. J. (2005). Cognitive Adaptive Test. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
      Google Scholar
    • Australian Bureau of Statistics. (2011). Census of population and housing: Socio-economic indexes for areas (SEIFA), Australia, 2011. Retrieved from http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/[email protected]/mf/2033.0.55.001
      Google Scholar
    • Camarata, S. M., & Nelson, K. E. (1992). Treatment efficiency as a function of target selection in the remediation of child language disorders.Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 6, 167–178.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Camarata, S. M., Nelson, K. E., & Camarata, M. N. (1994). Comparison of conversational-recasting and imitative procedures for training grammatical structures in children with specific language impairment.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 1414–1423.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Cirrin, F. M., & Gillam, R. B. (2008). Language intervention practices for school-age children with spoken language disorders: A systematic review.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39(Suppl.), S110–S137.
      Google Scholar
    • Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.
      Google Scholar
    • Connell, P. J., & Stone, C. A. (1992). Morpheme learning of children with specific language impairment under controlled instructional conditions.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 844–852.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Ebbels, S. (2014). Effectiveness of intervention for grammar in school-aged children with primary language impairments: A review of the evidence.Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 30, 7–40.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Fey, M. E., Cleave, P. L., Long, S. H., & Hughes, D. L. (1993). Two approaches to the facilitation of grammar in children with language impairment: An experimental evaluation.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 141–157.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Fey, M. E., Long, S. H., & Finestack, L. H. (2003). Ten principles of grammar facilitation for children with specific language impairments.American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 3–15.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Frankenburg, W. K., Dodds, J., Archer, P., Shapiro, H., & Bresnick, B. (1992). The Denver II: A major revision and restandardization of the Denver Developmental Screening Test.Pediatrics, 89, 91–97.
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Griffiths, R. (1970). The abilities of young children. Buckinghamshire, United Kingdom: Association for Research in Infant and Child Development.
      Google Scholar
    • Hancock, T. B., & Kaiser, A. P. (2006). Enhanced milieu teaching.In R. J. McCauley & M. E. Fey (Eds.), Treatment of language disorders in children (pp. 203–236). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
      Google Scholar
    • Haskill, A. M., Tyler, A. A., & Tolbert, L. C. (2001). Months of morphemes. Eau Claire, WI: Thinking Publications.
      Google Scholar
    • Howard, D., Best, W., & Nickels, L. (2015). Optimising the design of intervention studies: Critiques and ways forward.Aphasiology, 29, 526–562. doi:10.1080/02687038.2014.985884
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Juel, C. (1996). What makes literacy tutoring effective?.Reading Research Quarterly, 31, 268–289.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Leonard, L. B. (2000). Children with specific language impairment. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
      Google Scholar
    • Leonard, L. B., Camarata, S. M., Pawłowska, M., Brown, B., & Camarata, M. N. (2006). Tense and agreement morphemes in the speech of children with specific language impairment during intervention: Phase 2.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 749–770.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Logan, L. R., Hickman, R. R., Harris, S. R., & Heriza, C. B. (2008). Single subject research design: Recommendations for levels of evidence and quality rating.Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 50, 99–103.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • R. J. McCauley, & M. E. Fey (Eds.). (2006) Treatment of language disorders in children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
      Google Scholar
    • Nickels, L. (2002). Therapy for naming disorders: Revisiting, revising and reviewing.Aphasiology, 16, 935–979.
      CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • Rice, M. L., & Wexler, K. (2001). Test of Early Grammatical Impairment. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
      Google Scholar
    • Rice, M. L., Wexler, K., & Cleave, P. L. (1995). Specific language impairment as a period of extended optional infinitive.Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 38, 850–863.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Rice, M. L., Wexler, K., & Hershberger, S. (1998). Tense over time: The longitudinal course of tense acquisition in children with specific language impairment.Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1412–1431.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Schuele, C. M., & Boudreau, D. (2008). Phonological awareness intervention: Beyond the basics.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 39, 3–20.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Smith-Lock, K. M. (2014). Rule-based learning of regular past tense in children with specific language impairment.Cognitive Neuropsychology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/02643294.2014.951610
      MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Smith-Lock, K. M., Leitão, S., Lambert, L., & Nickels, L. (2013). Effective intervention for expressive grammar in children with specific language impairment.International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 48, 265–282.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Smith-Lock, K. M., Leitão, S., Lambert, L., Prior, P., Dunn, A., Cronje, J., … Nickels, L. (2013) Daily or weekly? The role of treatment frequency in the effectiveness of grammar treatment for children with specific language impairment.International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 255–267.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Tyler, A. A., Lewis, K. E., Haskill, A., & Tolbert, L. C. (2002). Efficacy and cross-domain effects of a morphosyntax and a phonology intervention.Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 33, 52–66.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Vigil, A., & van Kleeck, A. (1996). Clinical language teaching: Theories and principles to guide our responses when children miss our language targets.In M. D. Smith & J. S. Damico (Eds.), Childhood language disorders (pp. 64–96). New York, NY: Thieme.
      Google Scholar
    • Warren, S. F., Fey, M. E., & Yoder, P. J. (2007). Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link to creating optimally effective communication interventions.Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 70–77.
      CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • Wechsler, D. (2002). Wechsler Preschool and Primary Scale of Intelligence–Third Edition. Sydney, Australia: Pearson.
      Google Scholar
    • Wechsler, D., & Naglieri, J. A. (2006). Wechsler Nonverbal Scale of Ability. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.
      Google Scholar
    • Weismer, S. E., & Murray-Branch, J. (1989). Modeling versus modeling plus evoked production training: A comparision of two language intervention methods.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 269–281.
      ASHAWireGoogle Scholar
    • Wiig, E. H., Secord, W., & Semel, E. M. (1992). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–Preschool. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation.
      Google Scholar
    • Wiig, E., Secord, W., & Semel, E. (2006). Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals Preschool–Second Edition, Australian and New Zealand Standardised Edition. Sydney, Australia: Pearson.
      Google Scholar

    Additional Resources