Becoming a manual occupation? The construction of a therapy manual for use with language impaired children in mainstream primary schools

McCartney, Elspeth; Boyle, James; Bannatyne, Susan; Jessiman, Emma; Campbell, Christopher J.; Kelsey, Cherry; Smith, Jennifer; O’Hare, Anne

doi:10.1080/01431160310001603592

Cited by 21 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The intervention was designed along dimensions previously identified for manual-guided treatment, [29] drew together procedures for language intervention considered by researcher and professionals likely to be effective, [30] and was well-received by children, schools and parents.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving outcomes of preschool language delay in the community: protocol for the Language for Learning randomised controlled trial

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundEarly language delay is a high-prevalence condition of concern to parents and professionals. It may result in lifelong deficits not only in language function, but also in social, emotional/behavioural, academic and economic well-being. Such delays can lead to considerable costs to the individual, the family and to society more widely. The Language for Learning trial tests a population-based intervention in 4 year olds with measured language delay, to determine (1) if it improves language and associated outcomes at ages 5 and 6 years and (2) its cost-effectiveness for families and the health care system.Methods/DesignA large-scale randomised trial of a year-long intervention targeting preschoolers with language delay, nested within a well-documented, prospective, population-based cohort of 1464 children in Melbourne, Australia. All children received a 1.25-1.5 hour formal language assessment at their 4th birthday. The 200 children with expressive and/or receptive language scores more than 1.25 standard deviations below the mean were randomised into intervention or ‘usual care’ control arms. The 20-session intervention program comprises 18 one-hour home-based therapeutic sessions in three 6-week blocks, an outcome assessment, and a final feed-back/forward planning session. The therapy utilises a ‘step up-step down’ therapeutic approach depending on the child’s language profile, severity and progress, with standardised, manualised activities covering the four language development domains of: vocabulary and grammar; narrative skills; comprehension monitoring; and phonological awareness/pre-literacy skills. Blinded follow-up assessments at ages 5 and 6 years measure the primary outcome of receptive and expressive language, and secondary outcomes of vocabulary, narrative, and phonological skills.DiscussionA key strength of this robust study is the implementation of a therapeutic framework that provides a standardised yet tailored approach for each child, with a focus on specific language domains known to be associated with later language and literacy. The trial responds to identified evidence gaps, has outcomes of direct relevance to families and the community, includes a well-developed economic analysis, and has the potential to improve long-term consequences of early language delay within a public health framework.Trial registrationCurrent Controlled Trials ISRCTN03981121.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving outcomes of preschool language delay in the community: protocol for the Language for Learning randomised controlled trial

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are few controlled studies of the efficacy of treatment for children with speech and language delay (Law et al 2004). A search of the four major databases relevant to the study ( Medline , PsyInfo , ERIC , and Linguistics and Language Behaviour Abstracts ) and of unpublished research was carried out and identified five controlled studies providing evidence of the efficacy of both direct and indirect and group and individual approaches to intervention within the 6–11 years age range (for details, see McCartney et al 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, there have been no direct comparisons between these therapy modes and although there is evidence indicating that direct and indirect approaches to therapy yield comparable outcomes for expressive language (McCartney et al 2004), there is a dearth of data regarding outcomes for other areas of language within the 6–11 years age group, most notably receptive language.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Direct versus indirect and individual versus group modes of language therapy for children with primary language impairment: principal outcomes from a randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation

Boyle

McCartney

O’Hare

et al. 2009

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, at home, parents often ask children to tell personal stories about experiences they have had, and children listen to and read narratives as part of their language arts instruction at school (Geist & Aldridge, 2002;Jordan, Snow, & Porche, 2000;Riding & Tite, 1985). Narrative intervention is often incorporated into treatment plans because of its functional nature and its relationship to academic demands (Davies, Shanks, & Davies, 2004;Gillam, McFadden, & van Kleeck, 1995;Hayward & Schneider, 2000;McCartney et al, 2004;McFadden, 1998;Peterson, Jesso, & McCabe, 1999;Schoenbrodt, Kerins, & Gesell, 2003;Stiegler & Hoffman, 2001;Ukrainetz, 1998). While current publications provide anecdotal evidence and guidelines for the dynamic assessment of narratives (Gillam & McFadden, 1994;Gillam et al, 1999;Gutierrez-Clellen, Peña, & Quinn, 1995;Gutierrez-Clellen & Quinn, 1993; Iglesias, 1985; Iglesias & GutierrezClellen, 1988;L.…”

Section: Conclusion-mentioning

confidence: 99%

Dynamic Assessment of School-Age Children’s Narrative Ability: An Experimental Investigation of Classification Accuracy

Peña

Gillam

Malek

et al. 2006

J Speech Lang Hear Res

142

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments examined reliability and classification accuracy of a narration-based dynamic assessment task.Purpose-The first experiment evaluated whether parallel results were obtained from stories created in response to 2 different wordless picture books. If so, the tasks and measures would be appropriate for assessing pretest and posttest change within a dynamic assessment format. The second experiment evaluated the extent to which children with language impairments performed differently than typically developing controls on dynamic assessment of narrative language.Method-In the first experiment, 58 1st-and 2nd-grade children told 2 stories about wordless picture books. Stories were rated on macrostructural and microstructural aspects of language form and content, and the ratings were subjected to reliability analyses. In the second experiment, 71 children participated in dynamic assessment. There were 3 phases: a pretest phase, in which children created a story that corresponded to 1 of the wordless picture books from Experiment 1; a teaching phase, in which children attended 2 short mediation sessions that focused on storytelling ability; and a posttest phase, in which children created a story that corresponded to a second wordless picture book from Experiment 1. Analyses compared the pretest and posttest stories that were told by 2 groups of children who received mediated learning (typical and language impaired groups) and a no-treatment control group of typically developing children from Experiment 1.Results-The results of the first experiment indicated that the narrative measures applied to stories about 2 different wordless picture books had good internal consistency. In Experiment 2, typically developing children who received mediated learning demonstrated a greater amount of pretest to posttest change than children in the language impaired and control groups. Classification analysis indicated better specificity and sensitivity values for measures of response to intervention (modifiability) and posttest storytelling than for measures of pretest storytelling. Observation of modifiability was the single best indicator of language impairment. Posttest measures and modifiability together yielded no misclassifications. Conclusion-The first experiment supported the use of 2 wordless picture books as stimulus materials for collecting narratives before and after mediation within a dynamic assessment paradigm. The second experiment supported the use of dynamic assessment for accurately identifying language impairments in school-age children. Traditionally, speech-language pathologists diagnose children with language impairments (LI) by comparing their performance on standardized tests with the performance of their same-age peers (Tomblin, Records, & Zhang, 1996). There is growing dissatisfaction with single-time assessment because of the potential for measurement error (Bracken, 1988;McCauley & Swisher, 1984a, 1984bPlante & Vance, 1994) as well as the interfering effects of potential cultural bias (De...

show abstract

Becoming a manual occupation? The construction of a therapy manual for use with language impaired children in mainstream primary schools

Abstract: The construction and use of a therapy manual allowed the provision of replicable therapy within the research project whilst maintaining flexibility.

Cited by 21 publications

References 18 publications

Improving outcomes of preschool language delay in the community: protocol for the Language for Learning randomised controlled trial

Improving outcomes of preschool language delay in the community: protocol for the Language for Learning randomised controlled trial

Direct versus indirect and individual versus group modes of language therapy for children with primary language impairment: principal outcomes from a randomized controlled trial and economic evaluation

Dynamic Assessment of School-Age Children’s Narrative Ability: An Experimental Investigation of Classification Accuracy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About