The Effects of Focused Stimulation for Promoting Vocabulary in Young Children with Delays

Abstract

f The interactive model of language intervention optimizes parent-child interaction patterns by training parents to increase their responsiveness to the child's focus and interests, and provide language models appropriate to the child's level and plan-ofthemoment. We explored the effects of a focused stimulation version of this intervention approach, in which parents used interactive intervention techniques, but targeted specific vocabulary. In this pilot study, 16 mothers and their preschool-aged children with language delays were randomly assigned to treatment and delayed-treatment (control) groups. Vocabulary targets were individually selected for each child based on the child's phonetic repertoire and parent report of vocabulary development. In accord with program objectives, children in the treatment group used more target words and acquired more symbolic play gestures than children in the control group. No significant differences were found between the two groups at posttestfor control words, or for a general measure of vocabulary development. Finally, mothers of children in the experimental group reported a I reduction in aggressive/destructive behaviors in their children after intervention.

Screening for Speech and Language Delay in Preschool Children: Systematic Evidence Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force

“…Several studies used established approaches to therapy such as the Ward Infant Language Screening Test, Assessment, Acceleration, and Remediation program 96 and the Hanen principles. 78,79,85,93 Others used more theoretical approaches such as focused stimulation, 78,79,86,87,93 auditory discrimination, 83,90 imitation or modeling procedures, 76,92 auditory processing or work mapping, 85 and play narrative language. 80,81 Some interventions focused on specific words and sounds, used unconventional methods, or targeted a specific deficit.…”

“…Twenty-five RCTs in 24 publications met inclusion criteria, including 1 rated good, 72 13 rated fair, [73][74][75][76][77][78][79][80][81][82][83][84][85] and 11 rated poor quality 77,[86][87][88][89][90][91][92][93][94][95] (Table 7). Studies were considered to be of poor quality if they reported important differences between intervention and comparison groups at baseline, did not use intention-to-treat analysis, no method of randomization was reported, or there were Ͻ10 subjects in the intervention or comparison groups.…”

“…80,93 The most widely used outcome measure was mean-length utterances, used by 6 studies. 73,75,77,80,85 Studies rated as good or fair quality are described below by age categories according to the youngest ages included, although many studies included children in overlapping categories…”

Population-Based Screening of Children for Specific Speech and Language Impairment in Germany: A Systematic Review

“…Four studies showed clearly positive results, 2 studies showed mixed results. Girolametto et al [59][60][61] investigated the use of specific words, yielding mixed results.…”

Preschool hearing, speech, language, and vision screening

“…Ten RCTs and 12 controlled studies were identified which evaluated treatment, mostly for problems of articulation or phonology and expressive language. [27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39][40][41][42][43][44][45] These studies show that interventions are eVective in enhancing speech, expressive language, receptive language, and auditory discrimination relative to untreated controls. The size of the benefits represented progress from the 5th to the 25th percentile on a norm-referenced test.…”