Bilingual dialogic book-reading intervention for preschoolers with slow expressive vocabulary development

Tsybina, Irina; Eriks‐Brophy, Alice

doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2010.05.006

Cited by 77 publications

(73 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Targeting the stronger language allows therapy to build on and extend the child's highest linguistic attainment. The conclusion of this review of studies focusing mainly on preschool-age children was that no study suggested that monolingual treatment was superior to bilingual treatment, whereas some studies suggested that bilingual intervention was superior to a monolingual intervention in that (a) it promoted gains in both languages (Tsybina & Eriks-Brophy, 2010) and/or (b) the second language (L2) learning was more efficient when the home language (L1) was included in therapy (Perozzi & Sanchez, 1992; Elin Thordardottir, Weismer, & Smith, 1997). However, beyond theoretical support for bilingual intervention, little published evidence has been available on language intervention for bilingual children.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Monolingual or Bilingual Intervention for Primary Language Impairment? A Randomized Control Trial

Thordardottir

Cloutier

Ménard

et al. 2015

J Speech Lang Hear Res

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The intervention used in this study is in line with current recommendations of major speech-language pathology organizations. However, the findings indicate that the bilingual treatment created through collaboration with parents was not effective in creating a sufficiently intense bilingual context to make it significantly different from the monolingual treatment. Further studies are needed to assess the gains associated with clinical modifications made for bilingual children and to search for effective ways to accommodate their unique needs.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 97%

Monolingual or Bilingual Intervention for Primary Language Impairment? A Randomized Control Trial

Thordardottir

Cloutier

Ménard

et al. 2015

J Speech Lang Hear Res

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The selection of target vocabulary for DLLs with disabilities should be based on assessment of children's current receptive vocabulary skills (i.e., the ability to understand or comprehend language heard or read; Pence-Turnbull & Justice, 2012) and expressive vocabulary skills (i.e., the ability to express needs and wants and put thoughts into words and sentences in a way that makes sense and is grammatically accurate; Pence-Turnbull & Justice, 2012) in the two languages, their interests in activities and materials, and their communication needs across daily routines (e.g., Tsybina & Eriks-Brophy, 2010). Preschool teachers can collaborate with other members of the IEP team to identify bilingual vocabulary IEP goals for DLLs with disabilities.…”

Section: Identify Vocabulary Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bilingual Vocabulary Development for Dual Language Learners With Disabilities: Two Research-Based Approaches

Guan

Cheatham

2016

Young Exceptional Children

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vol. XX, No. X, Month 2016 YOUNG EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN V era is a preschool teacher in an inclusive early childhood program. At the beginning of fall, a new child, Carlos, joined her classroom. Carlos is a cheerful 4-year-old boy who likes toys and stories. He was diagnosed with a developmental delay in communication skills when he was 3 years old. His family came to the United States from Mexico 3 years ago. His mother, who is his primary caretaker, speaks Spanish and has limited English abilities. Carlos' father speaks fluent Spanish and English; he sometimes tries to speak English with Carlos. However, Carlos understands Spanish better than English, and he speaks Spanish at home most of the time. Extended family members sometimes help care for Carlos, and they typically speak Spanish with him as well. Carlos rarely speaks English in his preschool classroom. Occasionally, he expresses his needs and wants in simple Spanish words or phrases. He often plays with a Spanish-speaking child, but has few interactions with other peers. During the parent-teacher conference at the beginning of fall, Carlos' parents expressed their concern about his English and Spanish language skills. They told Vera and the assistant teacher Gillian that they want Carlos to learn more English and Spanish 649223Y ECXXX10.1177/1096250616649223Bilingual Vocabulary Development for DLLs With DisabilitiesGuan and Cheatham research-article2016

show abstract

“…A study conducted in a clinic with a multilingual clientele where the speech-language pathologist’s (SLP) lack of knowledge of the child’s first language was compensated for by systematic efforts to involve the child’s parents in the intervention session to create a bilingual intervention failed to create any gains beyond that of a monolingual intervention [6]. In contrast, bilingual work with parents has been shown to lead to bilingual gains in a more established bilingual context [7]. …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does Efficacy Equal Lasting Impact? A Study of Intervention Short Term Gains, Impact on Diagnostic Status, and Association with Background Variables

Thordardottir

Rioux

2019

Folia Phoniatr Logop

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective: This article examines the efficacy of language intervention services for monolingual and immigrant children in a public clinic in Montreal, Canada. Intervention is provided in French for a preset number of sessions regardless of intervention needs. The study assessed immediate gains after intervention, their maintenance over 2 months, and their effect on diagnostic status at both time points. Methods: Participants included 15 children (57.7 months SD 7.8) diagnosed with developmental language disorder: 3 monolinguals and 12 bilingual immigrants. Intervention targeted vocabulary and syntax. Assessment of intervention targets and standardized testing was conducted before, after, and 2 months after treatment. Diagnostic status and severity level were assessed at each time point. Results: Intervention was highly efficacious with large effect sizes for intervention targets. However, for diagnostic status, efficacy was more questionable. Seven children improved their diagnostic status from pre- to posttest; but many dropped back at maintenance point. For 3 children, all test time showed scores within the non-impaired range, indicating misdiagnosis or change in status while waiting for treatment. Amount of pain was not correlated with any background variable. Conclusions: Results suggest that intervention could be more efficacious by giving more therapy sessions and conducting evaluation and treatment closer in time.

show abstract

Bilingual dialogic book-reading intervention for preschoolers with slow expressive vocabulary development

Cited by 77 publications

References 34 publications

Monolingual or Bilingual Intervention for Primary Language Impairment? A Randomized Control Trial

Monolingual or Bilingual Intervention for Primary Language Impairment? A Randomized Control Trial

Bilingual Vocabulary Development for Dual Language Learners With Disabilities: Two Research-Based Approaches

Does Efficacy Equal Lasting Impact? A Study of Intervention Short Term Gains, Impact on Diagnostic Status, and Association with Background Variables

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About