Effectiveness of semantic therapy for word‐finding difficulties in pupils with persistent language impairments: a randomized control trial

Abstract

Four hours of semantic therapy on discrete semantic categories led to significant gains on a general standardized test of word finding, enabling the participants to begin to close the gap between their performance and that of their typically developing peers. These gains were maintained after 5 months. A small amount of therapy can lead to significant gains even with secondary aged pupils with severe language difficulties. However, further studies are needed to find ways of improving word-finding abilities in discourse.

Intervention for children with word-finding difficulties: a parallel group randomised control trial

“…However, this research is not directly comparable, as it focussed on a broader range of lexical disorders; including receptive as well as expressive vocabulary difficulties. To date, the largest study to focus specifically on children with word-finding difficulties included 15 children (Ebbels et al, 2012).…”

“…Wing, 1990, 6-7 years;Hyde Wright et al, 1993, 8-14 years) and the effect of intervention for WFD can be maintained (Bragard et al, 2012;German, 2002;McGregor, 1994). Ebbels et al (2012) employed an RCT to investigate the effectiveness of a semantic therapy for adolescents with WFDs occurring in the context of severe DLD. Activities included picture-sorting, discussion and comparison of semantic attributes.…”

“…The literature (e.g. Bragard et al, 2012, Ebbels et al, 2012Hyde Wright et al, 1993;Wing 1990) led us to predict the intervention group would make greater gains than the control group.…”

“…We examined whether there was any Intervention for word-finding difficulties 9 relationship between children's chronological age and also severity of language difficulties and the extent of improvement in naming. It might be predicted that word-finding would change more for younger children, due to the established benefits of early intervention (Dockrell, Stuart & King, 2004;Stothard, Snowling, Bishop, Chipchase, & Kaplan, 1998) or else for older children who would perhaps be more able to make use of the meta-cognitive strategies available in intervention (Ebbels et al, 2012). Secondly, children with relatively less difficulty acquiring language might be more likely to show change over the study based on emerging evidence linking language impairment with limitations in wider cognitive and verbal memory skills (Baird, Dworzynski, Slonims, & Simonoff, 2010;Lum, Conti-Ramsden, Page, & Ullman, 2012).…”

Evidence based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders

“…In general, studies using standardised tests as outcome measures fail to show significant effects of intervention for these children (Boyle et al, 2009, Gillam et al, 2008, a finding which likely reflects the design and psychometric properties of the tests used (Dockrell and Marshall, 2015). In contrast to this, studies using more tailored measures of progress have found significant gains with intervention targeting either a range of areas (Ebbels et al, in press) or the specific language areas of receptive vocabulary (Parsons et al, 2005, Throneburg et al, 2000, word finding (Ebbels et al, 2012, Hyde-Wright et al, 1993, production and comprehension of specific grammatical structures (e.g., Ebbels et al, 2014Ebbels et al, , 2007, and narrative (Hayward and Schneider, 2000) There is also emerging evidence that children with severe, complex and pervasive communication and language disorders (including those associated with autism and learning disabilities) can make progress with direct individualised intervention, usually in combination with collaborative work (discussed further below). Relevant studies tend to focus on the acquisition of specific skills, e.g.…”