Individual Versus Small Group Treatment of Morphological Errors for Children With Developmental Language Disorder

Abstract

Purpose This study examines the effects of enhanced conversational recast for treating morphological errors in preschoolers with developmental language disorder. The study assesses the effectiveness of this treatment in an individual or group ( n = 2) setting and the possible benefits of exposing a child to his or her partner's treatment target in addition to his or her own. Method Twenty children were assigned to either an individual ( n = 10) or group ( n = 10, 2 per group) condition. Each child received treatment for 1 morpheme (the target morpheme) for approximately 5 weeks. Children in the group condition had a different target from their treatment partner. Pretreatment and end treatment probes were used to compare correct usage of the target morpheme and a control morpheme. For children in the group condition, the correct usage of their treatment partner's target morpheme was also examined. Results Significant treatment effects occurred for both treatment conditions only for morphemes treated directly (target morpheme). There was no statistically significant difference between the treatment conditions at the end of treatment or at follow-up. Children receiving group treatment did not demonstrate significant gains in producing their partner's target despite hearing the target modeled during treatment. Conclusions This study provides the evidence base for enhanced conversational recast treatment in a small group setting, a treatment used frequently in school settings. Results indicate the importance of either attention to the recast or expressive practice (or both) to produce gains with this treatment. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.7859975

Maximizing Treatment Efficiency in Developmental Language Disorder: Positive Effects in Half the Time

“…The data collected at follow-up testing 5-7 weeks after the end of the treatment period suggest that children retained gains made during treatment but did not improve on their target morpheme use independently outside treatment. These results are consistent with the findings of our other studies of Enhanced Conversational Recast treatment (Eidsvåg et al, 2019;Meyers-Denman & Plante, 2016).…”

“…The average treatment effect sizes for children increased substantially between studies (1.92 on average in Plante et al, 2014;7.61 on average in Meyers-Denman & . This increase in effect sizes from the Plante et al (2014) study has been replicated in Plante et al (2018) and Eidsvåg et al (2019) in which children's average treatment effect sizes were 3.75 and 6.7, respectively, when the variables of attention and variability were both incorporated into what we now call Enhanced Conversational Recast treatment (Meyers-Denman & . The effect sizes in this study (Sparse: d = 5.7; Dense: d = 6.8) are also in line with these previous studies.…”

“…Instead, the results suggest that it is the clinician input, in proximity to the child's attempts, that is the likely mechanism of change in this treatment method. The lack of a statistical difference between the Sparse and Dense conditions likely reflects the effectiveness of the base treatment, Enhanced Conversational Recasting (Eidsvåg et al, 2019;Meyers-Denman & Plante, 2016;Plante et al, 2014Plante et al, , 2018. The primary effects on children's outcomes in this treatment appear to involve both input variability and child attention.…”

“…We note here that the criteria used here to gauge treatment response is different than the criterion used in our previous studies (a d > 1.0; Eidsvåg et al, 2019;Meyers-Denman & Plante, 2016;Plante et al, 2014Plante et al, , 2018. We provide a justification for this change and a reanalysis of the number of treatment responders in this and the previous studies in Supplemental Material S1.…”

“…Enhanced Conversational Recast treatment served as the dose form in the current study. This particular treatment has resulted in successful treatment outcomes in a number of recent studies (e.g., Eidsvåg, Plante, Oglivie, Privette, & Mailend, 2019;Encinas & Plante, 2016;Meyers-Denman & Plante, 2016;Plante, Tucci, Nicholas, Arizmendi, & Vance, 2018). Enhanced Conversational Recast treatment is based on traditional Conversational Recast treatment (e.g., Camarata & Nelson, 1992;Camarata, Nelson, & Camarata, 1994;Cleave et al, 2015) in which the child attempts the form targeted for treatment (spontaneously or after the clinician elicits its use) and the clinician restates the child's attempt using grammatically correct forms.…”