Vocabulary intervention for adolescents with language disorder: a systematic review

Lowe, Hilary; Henry, Lucy A.; Müller, Lisa‐Maria; Joffe, Victoria L.

doi:10.1111/1460-6984.12355

Cited by 27 publications

(25 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…For children with DLD (many of whom would previously have been diagnosed as having specific language impairment, SLI), good evidence exists of positive effects of individualized one-to-one direct intervention with an SLT for improving expressive language skills and vocabulary (for reviews, see Law et al 2003, Ebbels 2014, Lowe et al 2018 and some studies are beginning to emerge considering the effectiveness of delivery of intervention via telehealth (Wales et al 2017). Fewer studies explore the effectiveness of intervention for children with severe and pervasive difficulties, including receptive language difficulties (for a review, see Boyle et al 2010).…”

Section: Direct Individualized Intervention (Tier 3b)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders

Ebbels

McCartney

Slonims

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Paediatric SLT roles often involve planning individualised intervention for specific children (provided directly by SLTs or indirectly through non-SLTs), working collaboratively with families and education staff and providing advice and training. A tiered approach to service delivery is currently recommended, whereby services become increasingly specialised and individualised for children with greater needs.

show abstract

Section: Direct Individualized Intervention (Tier 3b)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders

Ebbels

McCartney

Slonims

et al. 2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Whilst the strongest evidence for the effectiveness of vocabulary intervention came from studies using a phonological–semantic approach, in individual, small group and whole‐class settings the results were, on the whole, mixed and should be viewed at this stage as preliminary (Lowe et al . ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…The studies cited in this systematic review were diverse and reflected interventions that focused primarily on semantics, phonology and a combined phonologicalsemantic approach, which links the sound and meaning of the word. Whilst the strongest evidence for the effectiveness of vocabulary intervention came from studies using a phonological-semantic approach, in individual, small group and whole-class settings the results were, on the whole, mixed and should be viewed at this stage as preliminary (Lowe et al 2018).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Improving storytelling and vocabulary in secondary school students with language disorder: a randomized controlled trial

Joffe

Rixon

Hulme

2019

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Although language and communication difficulties are common in secondary school students, there has been limited research into the efficacy of interventions for adolescents with language and communication difficulties. Aims To investigate the efficacy of teaching assistant (TA)‐delivered narrative and vocabulary interventions to mainstream secondary school‐aged students with language disorder. Methods & Procedures A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a language and communication intervention was used to evaluate the efficacy of vocabulary and narrative interventions to improve the vocabulary and narrative performance of adolescents (mean age = 12.8 years) with language disorder. The language and communication programmes (narrative, vocabulary and combined narrative and vocabulary) were delivered by TAs in the classroom, three times per week, for 45–60 min each, over 6 weeks, totalling 18 sessions. Standardized and intervention‐specific measures were used as outcomes. Outcomes & Results Twenty‐one schools with 358 eligible participants were recruited. The three intervention groups showed significant improvements ( d = .296) on a narrative latent variable defined by a standardized narrative assessment (the Expression, Reception and Recall of Narrative Instrument—ERRNI), but there were no significant improvements on an overall vocabulary latent variable compared with the waiting control group. Differential effects were found on some non‐standardized intervention‐specific measures with the narrative group making significantly more progress on narrative tasks compared with the waiting control group, the vocabulary group showing the same pattern on specific vocabulary tasks, and the combined narrative and vocabulary group making significantly more progress on some of the intervention‐specific narrative, and all the intervention‐specific vocabulary outcomes compared with the waiting control group. Conclusions & Implications It is possible to improve narrative but not vocabulary skills, as assessed by standardized measures, in secondary school students with a relatively brief group TA‐delivered intervention. There were differential effects for both narrative and vocabulary with intervention‐specific measures. Future work is required to explore whether more intensive and longer lasting interventions would be more effective and to identify which students in this age group are most likely to benefit from such interventions.

show abstract

“…, Ebbels , Lowe et al . ) and some studies are beginning to emerge considering the effectiveness of delivery of intervention via telehealth (Wales et al . ).…”

Section: Tier 3 Interventions (Individualized Intervention)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence‐based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders

Ebbels

McCartney

Slonims

et al. 2018

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SLTs have a contribution to make at all tiers, but where prioritization for clinical services is a necessity, we need to establish the relative benefits and cost-effectiveness at each tier. Good evidence exists for SLTs delivering direct individualized intervention and we should ensure that this is available to children with pervasive and/or complex language disorders. In cases where service models are being provided which lack evidence, we strongly recommend that SLTs investigate the effectiveness of their approaches.

show abstract

Vocabulary intervention for adolescents with language disorder: a systematic review

Cited by 27 publications

References 42 publications

Evidence based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders

Evidence based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders

Improving storytelling and vocabulary in secondary school students with language disorder: a randomized controlled trial

Evidence‐based pathways to intervention for children with language disorders

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About