Encyclopedia of Language and Literacy Development
RSS feed
 Authors   Section Editors   Entries (A-Z)   Français 
Effective Interventions for Specific Language Impairment
Written by:
Elin Thordardottir, Ph.D., School of Communication Sciences and Disorders, McGill University
Published online:
2007-05-24 09:34:34
Printable version:
Print   (requires Acrobat Reader, available for free from Adobe)
Share With:
Email

Introduction

Specific Language Impairment (SLI) is diagnosed in children who evidence significant developmental difficulty which manifests primarily in the area of language. The term "language" is used here to refer to difficulty in aspects such as vocabulary and grammar, and is differentiated from "speech" impairments such as articulation impairments or stuttering. Language is an important part of almost all daily activities, social and academic. As a result, language impairments have a significant impact on children's success and well-being. This article discusses the main types of interventions available for the remediation of language impairment in childhood and their efficacy. Language impairment in childhood can occur as the primary diagnostic factor or as part of a more general developmental disorder (specific versus non-specific language impairment). In some respects, the intervention approach may vary depending on the children's diagnostic category in order to take into account differences in developmental profiles and learning styles. To a large extent, however, interventions are more similar than different across diagnostic categories, being tailored to fit the individual child's language level, cognitive ability, communicative needs and interests. This review will, however, focus on studies on children whose primary deficit is in the area of language.

Research Questions:

1) What methods are used to remediate language impairment and what are they based on?
2) Is there evidence to support the efficacy of language intervention methods?
3) Do the same methods work for children speaking different languages and for bilingual children?

1) What methods are used to remediate language impairment and what are they based on?

Once a child has been identified for intervention, an individualized therapy plan is typically formulated with specific therapy objectives based on an in-depth assessment of the child's abilities in comprehension and production across various domains of language such as vocabulary, grammar, and language use. The areas of language that are most significantly affected by language impairment vary across individual children and also within the same child over time (Conti-Ramsden & Botting, 1999). Therefore, therapy goals are tailored for children individually and are reassessed periodically. Multiple therapy targets are prioritized based on a number of factors see e.g., Paul, 2007). Thus, the order in which language structures are addressed usually follows their normal order of acquisition to ensure that the child possesses the necessary prerequisites for the new skill. Another important consideration is the functionality of the target for the child given the child's typical activities. This not only increases the child's motivation but also promotes immediate transfer of the skill to daily activities. The child's future needs are also considered and may at times be deemed more important than adherence to the developmental sequence. For example, it has been advocated that intervention for preschool children should not only focus on preschool-level conversational skills, but should include more advanced language skills aiming to prepare the children for classroom interactions and the acquisition of literacy (Fey, Catts & Larrivee, 1995). In general, the goals selected will vary depending on the age and developmental level of the child, with younger children typically addressing basic aspects of language, and school-age children and adolescents addressing, in addition, more complex aspects which are often tied to school-related needs. Thus, older children often work on aspects such as understanding their textbooks, writing a well-organized term-paper, and understanding complex uses of language such as multiple-meaning words and figurative languages such as idioms, similes, and metaphors (Nippold, 2000).

Available methods of language intervention vary in their focus and theoretical orientation (see review of various methods in McCauley & Fey, 2006; Paul, 2007). Some methods focus on the explicit teaching of rule-based aspects of language, whereas other methods emphasize the meaning of language without an explicit focus on formal aspects, under the assumption that the underlying rules will emerge with meaningful use. Intervention approaches vary as well in the breadth of their focus. Thus, approaches may target language skills broadly or may be designed to target specific sets of skills with the assumption that these are directly linked to success in language learning, for example, aspects of auditory processing (Tallal, Miller, Bedi, Byma, Wang, Nagarajan, et al., 1998). Strategies have also been developed to incorporate components directed specifically at memory and attention and the processing of linguistic information (Ellis Weismer, 2000; Gillam, Hoffman, Marler & Wynn-Dancy, 2002).

One way to categorize language intervention approaches is according to the extent to which the teaching activities are under the clinician's control, describing approaches as falling on a continuum from clinician-controlled to child-centered (Fey, 1986). The former type of approach allows the clinician to impose a focus on specific pre-selected therapy targets using activities that permit intensive training of these targets. In contrast, child-centered approaches use more naturalistic activities in which the clinician incorporates modeling and reinforcement of therapy targets within contexts that are meaningful to the child. However, at the same time, there is less opportunity for the therapist to control the focus of the session. At the midpoint of the continuum are hybrid, or semi-structured approaches which aim to include the benefits of approaches at each end.

2) Is there evidence to support the efficacy of language intervention methods?

To decide whether a given intervention method is appropriate and efficacious, one must evaluate its theoretical support as well as research evidence supporting its efficacy. The efficacy of clinical intervention is demonstrated by showing that progress is made which is directly attributable to the intervention. This can be addressed by testing groups of children, randomly assigned to treatment and no-treatment groups or to groups receiving two different types of intervention (in such studies, children in the no-treatment groups are generally offered treatment once their no-treatment period is over). Another method tracks the performance of individual children over time, beginning with a baseline of pre-treatment performance and subsequently demonstrating that increased performance coincides with the onset of treatment (see review in Cleave, 2001). Yet another approach rests on the demonstration that progress over a period of time exceeds that which would be expected by development alone by comparison with normative data on typical development. It must be kept in mind, however, that children with language impairment progress more slowly than typically developing children. Therefore, even if their progress in therapy does not exceed that seen in typically developing children, it may constitute a significant improvement over no treatment (Leonard, 1998). In the demonstration of accuracy, it is important as well to document not only the immediate outcome of the intervention, but also how well the gains transfer to other situations (referred to as generalization), and how well they are maintained over time. Indeed, generalization has been a notorious area of difficulty in language intervention, resulting in an increased focus on strategies that promote meaningful learning and long-term retention.

A number of published intervention efficacy studies support the efficacy of various treatment approaches, providing clear evidence that language intervention can make a significant difference for children's language development, including approaches that use highly clinician-directed methods and ones that use a more naturalistic or hybrid method (Camarata, Nelson & Camarata, 1994; Connell, 1987; Connell & Stone, 1992; Culatta & Horn, 1982; Ellis Weismer, Murray & Branch, 1989; Fey et al., 1993; Fey, Cleave & Long, 1997; Kouri, 2005; Leonard, Camarata, Brown & Camarata, 2004; Nelson, Camarata, Welsh, Butkowski & Camarata, 1996; Schwartz, Chapman, Terrell, Prelock & Alpert, 1992). These studies have used controlled group designs as well as single-subject designs and have included interventions addressing various aspects of language, including lexical and grammatical goals as well as pragmatic aspects of language. Many of the available studies have focused on preschool-age children, however, studies have targeted school-age children as well (Culatta & Horn, 1982; Parsons, Law & Gascoigne, 2005; Swanson, Fey, Mills & Hood, 2005).

The available research, therefore, indicates that language intervention works. However, there is little clear-cut evidence supporting the superiority of one type of approach over another or providing guidelines as to which approach will work best for individual children (e.g. Kouri, 2005; Law, Garrett & Nye, 2004; Leonard, 1993). Several studies have concluded, however, that interventions that emphasize learning in meaningful contexts do result in better generalization (Camarata et al., 1994; Kouri, 2005; Law, 1997). Meta-analyses of intervention studies have been conducted, which combine results across studies in order to offer a synthesis of available findings (e.g. Law et al., 2004). These studies have confirmed the efficacy of intervention for various aspects of language, but also raise important questions regarding research methods and the correspondence between intervention conducted for research and in clinics. Most available intervention studies follow children over relatively short periods of time. However, clinical experience as well as research indicates that most children with language impairment will require long term intervention (Fujiki & Brinton, 2005; Leonard, 1998). Interventions have been proposed that promise very rapid gains in language skills and some of these have gained considerable popularity. However, such intervention approaches in general remain controversial theoretically as well as empirically, when treatment gains are considered in tightly controlled research studies (e.g.; Cohen et al., 2005; Gillam, Crofford, Gale, & Hoffman, 2001; Tallal et al., 1998).

Parents often play an important role in their children's intervention. Parent involvement may be indirect, involving general support or homework assignments to support therapy activities. In other cases, parents may be trained to play a more direct role in implementing therapy activities. Studies have shown that trained parents can be effective agents of intervention (Fey et al., 1993; Proctor-Williams, Fey & Loeb, 2001; Tannock & Girolametto, 1992). However, the results of parent intervention are found to be less consistent than those achieved by a clinician (Fey et al. 1993). Recent results also support the viability of the use of trained child care workers as agents of intervention (Girolametto, Weitzman & Greenberg, 2003; 2004). These results suggest that parent-based intervention should not be seen as a replacement for clinician-based intervention. As well, it is important to recognize that not all parents are capable of assuming this role due to various factors and should not be given the primary responsibility of intervention.

3) Do the same methods work for children speaking different languages and for bilingual children?

The great majority of published intervention efficacy studies have focused on monolingual speakers of English. To what extent are the findings applicable to children speaking other languages? Clinical experience supports the efficacy of language interventions conducted in other languages, suggesting that many of the factors that facilitate language are the same across languages. However, it is also important to keep in mind that important cultural differences exist in child rearing practices, including how parents and other adults speak to children and the ways in which children are expected to respond (Brice Heath, 1983; Ochs, 1988). Therefore, further research may uncover cross-linguistic differences in optimal methods for language facilitation (van Kleeck, 1994). As a general guideline, methods using intervention styles that feel awkward to native speakers of a language are not likely to be the ones most conducive to results. Very few published efficacy studies have focused on bilingual children. A central question that arises for this group is frequently which language to use in intervention. The limited evidence available for bilingual children with language impairment suggests that intervention conducted bilingually produces somewhat better results than monolingual intervention (Elin Thordardottir, Ellis Weismer & Smith, 1997). Thus, the evidence speaks against the elimination of one of the languages, showing that it is not a helpful strategy and may in fact be counterproductive (Elin Thordardottir, 2006). Indeed, many authors have emphasized the benefit of intervention methods which strengthen both languages of bilingual children (Elin Thordardottir, 2006; Elin Thordardottir et al., 1997; Kohnert, Yim, Nett, Kan & Duran, 2005; Restrepo, 2005).

Directions for Further Research

To summarize, a number of well controlled research studies have provided evidence that language intervention with children using several different methods is efficacious. However, many aspects of intervention need to be investigated in greater detail with respect to their effect on efficacy. First, in spite of the considerable research base available, much more research is needed to further confirm the efficacy of language interventions and to better establish which aspects of these methods are the key contributors to treatment gains. Also, although there is evidence that interventions of greater duration in general provide better results (Law et al., 2004), little detailed information exists on the optimal intensity of intervention (length of sessions, number and spacing of sessions). Other questions include whether there are identifiable periods when children are more or less receptive to intervention, whether certain characteristics of children in terms of their language impairment or other ability factors make them ideal candidates for particular types of intervention, and what methods are most efficacious for bilingual children.

References
Brice Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words : Language, life and work in communities and classrooms. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Camarata, S., Nelson, K., & Camarata, M. (1994). Comparison of conversational recast and imitative procedures for training grammatical structures in children with developmental delay. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 37, 1414-1423.

Cleave, P. (2001). Design issues in treatment efficacy research for child language intervention: A review of the literature. Journal of Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology, 25, 24-34.

Cohen, W., Hodson, A., O'Hare, A., Boyle, J., Durrani, T., McCarthey, E., Mattey, M., Naftalin, L., & Watson, J. (2005). Effects of computer-based intervention through acoustically modified speech (fast forword) in severe mixed receptive-expressive language impairment: outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 715-729.

Connell, P. (1987). An effect of modeling and imitation teaching procedures on children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 105-113.

Connell, P., & Stone, C. (1992). Morpheme learning of children with specific language impairment under controlled instructional conditions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 844-852.

Conti-Ramsden, G. & Botting, N. (1999). Classification of children with specific language impairment: Longitudinal considerations. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 42, 1195-1204.

Culatta, B., & Horn, D. (1982). A program for achieving generalization of grammatical rules to spontaneous discourse. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 47, 174-180.

Elin Thordardottir (2006, Aug 15). Language intervention from a bilingual mindset. The ASHA Leader, 11 (10), 6-7, 20-21.

Elin Thordardottir, Ellis Weismer, S., & Smith, M. (1997). Vocabulary learning in bilingual and monolingual clinical intervention. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 13, 215-22.

Elin Thordardottir, Rothenberg, A., Rivard, M.-E., & Naves, R. (2006). Bilingual assessment: Can overall proficiency be estimated from separate measurement of two languages? Journal of Multilingual Communication Disorders, 4, 1-21.

Ellis Weismer, S. (2000). Language intervention for young children with language impairments. In L. Watson, E. Crais and T. Layton (Eds.). Handbook of early language impairment in children: Assessment and treatment (Ch. 6, pp. 173-198). Albany, NY: Delmar.

Ellis Weismer, S., & Murray-Branch, J. (1989). Modeling versus modeling plus evoked production training: A comparison of two language intervention methods. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 269-281.

Fey, M. (1986). Language intervention with young children. Newton, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Fey, M., Cleave, P., & Long, S. (1997). Two models of grammar facilitation in children with language impairments: Phase 2. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 40, 5-19.

Fey, M., Catts, H., & Larrivee, L. (1995). Preparing preschoolers for the academic and social challenges of school. In M. Fey, J. Windsor, & S. Warren (Eds.), Language intervention: Preschool through the elementary years. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.

Fey, M., Cleave, P., Long, S., & Hughes, D. (1993). Two approaches to the facilitation of grammar in children with language impairment: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 141-157.

Fujiki, M., & Brinton, B. (2005). Foreward: part 2: lessons from longitudinal case studies. Topics in Language Disorders, 24, 337.

Gilliam, R.B., Crofford, J.A., Gale, M.A., & Hoffman, L.M. (2001). Language change following computer-assisted language instruction with fast forword or laureate learning systems software. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 231-247.

Gilliam, R.B., Hoffman, L.M., Marler, J.A., Wynn-Dancy, & M., L. (2002). Sensitivity to increased task demands: Contributions from data-driven and conceptually driven information processing deficits. Topics in language disorders, 22, 30-48.

Gillam, R. (1997). Putting memory to work in language intervention: Implications for practitioners. Topics in Language Disorders, 18 (1), 72-79

Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., & Greenberg, J. (2003). Training day care staff to facilitate children's language. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 299-311.

Girolametto, L., Weitzman, E., & Greenberg, J. (2004). The effects of verbal support strategies on small-group peer interactions. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 35, 254-268.

Kohnert, K., Yim, D., Nett, K., Kan, P., & Duran, L. (2005). Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 36, 251-263.

Kouri, T. (2005). Lexical training through modeling and elicitation procedures with late talkers who have specific language impairment and developmental delays. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 48, 157-171.

Law, J. (1997). Evaluation intervention for language impaired children: a review of the literature. European Journal of Disorders of Communication, 32, 1-14.

Law, J., Garrett, Z., & Nye, C. (2004). The efficacy of treatment for children with developmental speech and language delay/disorder: A meta-analysis. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 47, 924-943.

Leonard, L., Camarata, S., Brown, B., Camarata, M. (2004). Tense and agreement in the speech of children with specific language impairment: Patterns of generalization through intervention. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1363-1379.

Leonard, L. (1993). Children with specific language impairment (developmental dysphasia): Treatment. In G. Blanken, J. Dittmann, H. Grimm, J. Marshall, & C. Wallesch (Eds.), Linguistic disorders and pathologies: An international handbook (pp. 262-284). Berlin: De Gruyter.

McCauley, R., & Fey, M. (2006). Treatment of language disorders in children. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing.

Nelson, K., Camarata, S., Welsh, J., Butkowsky, L., & Camarata, M. (1996). Effects of imitative and conversational recasting treatment on the acquisition of grammar in children with specific language impairment and younger language-normal children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 850-859.

Nippold, M. (2000). Language development during the adolescent years: Aspects of pragmatics, syntax, and semantics. Topics in Language Disorders, 20, 15-28.

Ochs, E. (1988). Culture and language development: Language acquisition and language socialization in a samoan village. Cambridge, MA: Cambrige University Press.

Paul, R. (2007). Language disorders from infancy through adolescence: Assessment and intervention (3rd ed.). St.Louis, MO: Mosby Elsevier.

Parsons, S., Law, J., Gascoigne, M. (2005). Teaching receptive vocabulary to children with specific language impairment: A curriculum-based approach. Child Language Teaching & Therapy, 21, 39-59.

Proctor-Williams, K., Fey, M., & Loeb, D. (2001). Parental recasts and production in copulas and articles by children with specific language impairment and typical language. American Journal of Speech-Language pathology, 10, 155-168.

Restrepo, M. A. (2005). The case for bilingual intervention for typical and atypical language learners. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 12, 13-17.

Schwartz, R., Chapman, K., Terrell, B., Prelock, P., & Rowan, L. (1985). Facilitating word combinations in language-impaired children through discourse structure. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 50, 31-39.

Swanson, L.A., Fey, M.E., mills, C.E., & Hood, L.S. (2005). Use of narrative-based language intervention with children who have specific language impairment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 14, 131-143.

Tallal, P., Miller, S.L., Bedi, G., Byma, G., Wang, X., Nagarajan, S.S., Schreiner, C., Jenkins, W.M., & Merzenich, M.M. (1998). Language comprehension in language-learning impaired children improved with acoustically modified speech. In M.E. Hertzig, & E.A. Farber (Eds.), Annual progress in child psychiatry and child development (193-200). Philadelphia: Brunner/Mazel.

Tannock, R., & Girolametto, L. (1992). Language intervention with children who have developmental delays: Effects of an interactive approach. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97, 145-160.

vanKleeck, A. (1994). Potential cultural bias in training parents as conversational partners with their children who have delays in language development. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology, 3, 67-78.

Warren, S., & Bambara, L. (1989). An experimental analysis of milieu language intervention: Teaching the action-object form. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 448-461.

Warren, S., & Kaiser, A. (1986). Incidental language teaching: A critical review. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 51, 291-299.

Yoder, P., Kaiser, A., & Alpert, C. (1991). An exploratory study of the interaction between language teaching methods and child characteristics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 155-167.
Comments:
Comment:
Name:
(Preference is given to commenters that use real names)
elcap
Verify:
All comments are moderated and will not appear on site until they have been reviewed. We reserve the right to choose which comments are posted.
  • We will not post comments that are profane, libelous, racist, or engage in personal attacks.
  • We will not post comments that seek to spread information that is false or misleading.
  • We may not post comments that are off topic, or link to outside websites.
  • We may not post comments that are poorly spelled; or written in all caps; or which use strange formatting to get noticed.
No Comments