Dose Schedule and Enhanced Conversational Recast Treatment for Children With Specific Language Impairment

Christina N Meyers-Denman, Elena Plante, Christina N Meyers-Denman, Elena Plante

Abstract

Purpose: Dosage has been identified as an important element of treatment that may affect treatment efficacy. The purpose of this study was to examine the role of dose schedule for treatment of grammatical morphology deficits in children with specific language impairment (SLI).

Method: Sixteen 4-to-5-year-old children with SLI participated in a 5-week intervention consisting of equivalent daily Enhanced Conversational Recast treatment (Plante et al., 2014) targeting grammatical morphology. Half of the children received treatment in one 30-min session (massed condition). Half received treatment in three 10-min sessions (spaced condition) within one 4-hr period. Progress was assessed 3 times weekly by probing a child's use of his or her treatment morpheme and untreated morpheme (a maturational control) in untreated contexts.

Results: Pre- to posttreatment morpheme usage differed significantly for children regardless of dosage condition, and pre to post usage of an untreated morpheme was unchanged, demonstrating overall treatment efficacy. There were no differences in treatment effects for the massed and spaced conditions.

Conclusions: The study adds to evidence that Enhanced Conversational Recast can produce positive results in a short period of time for children with SLI. Furthermore, clinicians may have some flexibility in terms of the dose schedule they use to deliver this treatment in an evidence-based manner.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.
Average effect size for target and control morphemes by massed and spaced treatment condition. Error bars represent the standard errors.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.
Scatter plot showing the correlation between end-treatment performance and follow-up performance.

References

    1. Alt M., Meyers C., & Ancharski A. (2012). Using principles of learning to inform language therapy design for children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 47, 487–498.
    1. Ambridge B., Theakston A. L., Lieven E. V. M., & Tomasello M. (2006). The distributed learning effect for children's acquisition of an abstract syntactic construction. Cognitive Development, 21, 174–193.
    1. Barratt J., Littlejohns P., & Thompson J. (1992). Trial of intensive compared to weekly speech therapy in preschool children. Archives of Disease in Childhood, 67, 106–108.
    1. Camarata S. M., & Nelson K. E. (1992). Treatment efficiency as a function of target selection in the remediation of child language disorders. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 6, 167–178.
    1. Camarata S. M., & Nelson K. E. (2006). Conversational recast intervention with preschool and older children. In McCauley R. J. & Fey M. E. (Eds.), Treatment of language disorders in children (pp. 237–264). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
    1. Camarata S. M., Nelson K. E., & Camarata M. N. (1994). Comparison of conversational recasting and imitative procedures for training grammatical structures in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 1414–1423.
    1. Childers J., & Tomasello M. (2002). Two-year-olds learn novel nouns, verbs and conventional actions from massed or distributed exposures. Developmental Psychology, 38, 967–978.
    1. Cleave P. L., Becker S. D., Curran M. K., Van Horne A. J. O., & Fey M. E. (2015). The efficacy of recasts in language intervention: A systematic review and meta-analysis. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 24, 237–255.
    1. Dawson J. I., Stout C. E., Eyer J. A., Tattersall P., Fonkalsrud J., & Crolwey K. (2003). Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test: Preschool, Second Edition. DeKalb, IL: Janelle Publications.
    1. Dunn L. M., & Dunn D. M. (2015). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson.
    1. Glenberg A. M. (1979). Component-levels theory of the effects of spacing of repetitions on recall and recognition. Memory & Cognition, 7, 95–112.
    1. Goldman R., & Fristoe M. (2000). Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–Second Edition. Circle Pines, MN: AGS.
    1. Gómez R. L. (2002). Variability and detection of invariant structure. Psychological Science, 13, 431–436.
    1. Greenslade K. J., Plante E., & Vance R. (2006). The diagnostic accuracy and construct validity of the Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test-Preschool: Second Edition (SPELT-P2). Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 150–160.
    1. Grunow H., Spaulding T. J., Gómez R. L., & Plante E. (2006). The effects of variation on learning word order rules by adults with and without language-based learning disabilities. Journal of Communication Disorders, 39, 158–170.
    1. Hadley P. A., & Walsh K. M. (2014). Toy talk: Simple strategies to create richer grammatical input. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45, 159–172.
    1. Hassink J. M., & Leonard L. B. (2010). Within-treatment factors as predictors of outcomes following conversational recasting. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 19, 213–224.
    1. Janiszewski C., Noel H., & Sawyer A. G. (2003). A meta‐analysis of the spacing effect in verbal learning: Implications for research on advertising repetition and consumer memory. Journal of Consumer Research, 30, 138–149.
    1. Kaufman A., & Kaufman N. L. (2004). Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children–Second Edition. Circle Pines, MN: AGS.
    1. Leonard L. B., Camarata S. M., Brown B., & Camarata M. N. (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.
    1. Leonard L. B., Camarata S. M., Pawłowska M., Brown B., & Camarata M. N. (2006). Tense and agreement morphemes in the speech of children with specific language impairment during intervention: Phase 2. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 749–770.
    1. Nelson K. E., Camarata S. M., Welsh J., Butkovsky 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, Language, and Hearing Research, 39, 850–859.
    1. Newcomer P. L., & Hammill D. D. (1997). The Test of Language Development—Primary: Third Edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
    1. Perry L. K., Samuelson L. K., Malloy L. M., & Schiffer R. N. (2010). Learn locally, think globally exemplar variability supports higher-order generalization and word learning. Psychological Science, 21, 1894–1902.
    1. Plante E., Oglivie T., Vance R., Aguilar J. M., Dailey N. S., Meyers C., … Burton R. (2014). Variability in the language input to children enhances learning in a treatment context. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 23, 530–545.
    1. Proctor-Williams K., & Fey M. E. (2007). Recast density and acquisition of novel irregular past tense verbs. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1029–1047.
    1. Riches N. G., Tomasello M., & Conti-Ramsden G. (2005). Verb learning in children with SLI: Frequency and spacing effects. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 1397–1411.
    1. Schmidt R. A., & Bjork R. A. (1992). New conceptualizations of practice: Common principles in three paradigms suggest new concepts for training. Psychological Science, 3, 207–217.
    1. Smith-Lock K., Leitåo S., Lambert L., & Nickel L. (2013a). Effective Intervention for expressive grammar in children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders, 48, 265–282.
    1. Smith-Lock K., Leitåo S., Lambert L., Prior P., Dunn A., Cronje J., … Nickel L. (2013b). Daily or weekly? The role of treatment frequency in the effectiveness of grammar treatment for children with specific language impairment. International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 255–267.
    1. Torkildsen J., Dailey N. S., Aguilar J. M., Gómez R., & Plante E. (2013). Exemplar variability facilitates rapid learning of an otherwise unlearnable grammar by individuals with language-based learning disability. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 56, 618–629.
    1. Ukrainetz T. A., Ross C. L., & Harm H. M. (2009). An investigation of treatment scheduling for phonemic awareness with kindergartners at risk for reading difficulties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 40, 86–100.
    1. Vlach H. A., Sandhofer C. M., & Kornell N. (2008). The spacing effect in children's memory and category induction. Cognition, 109, 163–167.
    1. Warren S. F., Fey M. E., & Yoder P. J. (2007). Differential treatment intensity research: A missing link in creating optimally effective communication interventions. Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities Research Reviews, 13, 70–77.

Source: PubMed

Sponsors and Collaborators

Medical Conditions

Drug Interventions

3
Subscribe