Purpose: This article summarizes the shared principles and evidence underpinning methods employed in the three sentence-level (syntactic) grammatical intervention approaches developed by the authors. We discuss associated clinical resources and map a way forward for clinically useful research in this area. Method: We provide an overview of the principles and perspectives that are common across our three syntactic intervention approaches: MetaTaal (Zwitserlood, 2015; Zwitserlood, Wijnen, et al., 2015), the SHAPE CODING™ system (Ebbels, 2007; Ebbels et al., 2014, 2007), and Complex Sentence Intervention (Balthazar & Scott, 2017, 2018). A description of each approach provides examples and summarizes current evidence supporting effectiveness for children with developmental language disorder ranging in age from 5 to 16 years. We suggest promising directions for future research that will advance our understanding of effective practices and support more widespread adoption of syntactic interventions with school-age children. Conclusion: In each approach to syntactic intervention, careful and detailed analysis of grammatical knowledge is used to support target selection. Intervention targets are explicitly described and presented systematically using multimodal representations within engaging and functional activities. Treatment stimuli are varied within a target pattern in order to maximize learning. Similar intervention intervals and intensities have been studied and proven clinically feasible and have produced measurable effects. We identify a need for more research evidence to maximize the effectiveness of our grammatical interventions, encompassing languages other than English, as well as practical clinical tools to guide target selection, measurement of outcomes, and decisions about how to tailor interventions to individual needs.
LINK
Purpose: This study explores limitations in communication in daily life of children with developmental language disorder (DLD) from their parents' perspective as well as communicative abilities and social functioning in the classroom from their teacher's perspective. Furthermore, differences between children with mixed receptive–expressive disorder and children with expressive-only disorder in communication in daily life and social functioning are studied. Method: Data were collected through questionnaires completed by parents and teachers of children (5–6 years old) who attended schools for special education for DLD. Language test scores were retrieved from school records. Parents of 60 children answered open-ended questions about situations and circumstances in which their child was most troubled by language difficulties. Teachers of 83 children rated communicative abilities, social competence, and student–teacher relationship. Results: Parents reported communication with strangers as most troublesome and mentioned the influence of the mental state of their child. Parents considered limitations in expressing oneself and being understood and not being intelligible as core difficulties. Teachers rated the children's communicative abilities in the school context as inadequate, but their scores concerning social competence and the quality of teacher–child relationships fell within the normal range. Children with receptive–expressive disorder experienced limitations in communication in almost all situations, whereas those with expressive disorder faced limitations in specific situations. Children with receptive–expressive disorder were also significantly more limited in their communicative abilities and social competence at school than children with expressive disorder. No differences were found between the two groups in the quality of the teacher–child relationship. Conclusions: The results confirm that children with DLD face significant challenges in a variety of communicative situations. We found indications that children with receptive–expressive disorder experience more severe limitations than children with expressive disorder. The involvement of parents and teachers in evaluating a child's communicative ability provides valuable and clinically relevant information.
AimTo investigate: (a) language difficulties in children with developmental coordination disorder (DCD), and (b) motor difficulties in children with developmental language disorder (DLD).MethodIn this systematic review, PubMed, CINAHL, PsycINFO, and Embase were searched to identify peer-reviewed studies. Two researchers independently identified, screened and evaluated the methodological quality of the included studies following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA). For objective (a), we combined the terms: “developmental coordination disorder” AND “language skills” AND “children”. For objective (b) we combined the terms: “developmental language disorder” AND “motor skills” AND “children”.ResultsTen studies on language skills in children with DCD and 34 studies on motor skills in children with DLD are included, most with relatively good methodological quality. The results for language comprehension and production in children with DCD are contradictory, but there is evidence that children with DCD have communication and phonological problems. Evidence for general motor problems in children with DLD is consistent. Studies report problems in balance, locomotor, and fine motor skills in children with DLD. Evidence for aiming and catching skills is inconsistent.InterpretationThe findings of this systematic review highlight the co-occurrence of language impairments in children with DCD and motor impairments in children with DLD. Healthcare professionals involved in the assessment and diagnosis of children with DCD or DLD should be attentive to this co-occurrence. In doing so, children with DCD and DLD can receive optimal interventions to minimize problems in their daily life.
