Children with DLD in special education show improvement in language performance. No differences in improvement between: • Children with receptive expressive disorders and expressive disorders • Children with low and high IQs • Mono and multilingual children Intervention is important for all children with DLD. Contact: gerda.bruinsma@hu.nlThere is a paucity of information on the effects of special education provisions on the language skills of children with DLD. Specifically , it is unclear 1. if (and how ) school based intervention impacts various language domains 2. to what extent child characteristics modulate outcomes Method We traced the trajectory of 154 children with DLD at 18 schools for special education that provide systematic language oriented interventions . Mean age 4;10 at the start of the study; range 3;11 5;7 yrs
Purpose: Applying evidence-based grammar intervention can be challenging for speech and language therapists (SLTs). Language in Interaction Therapy (LIT) is a focused stimulation intervention for children with weak morphosyntactic skills, which was developed to support SLTs in incorporating results from effect studies in daily practice. The aims of this Clinical Focus are (a) to explain the principles and elements of LIT and stimulate use in daily SLT practice and (b) to describe the effects of LIT on morphosyntactic skills of 4- to 5-year-olds in special education, compared to usual care. Method: With a description of LIT, we provide guidance to implement evidence-based intervention. Important elements are as follows: proper selection of therapy goals, language facilitating techniques, child-centered and clinician-directed elements, and the use of scripts. Our focus in the description is on the support and practical solutions LIT tries to provide to SLTs. We also explored the implementation of LIT in special education, to improve morphosyntax in 4- and 5-year-old children. We provided SLTs with training and designed protocols for each therapy session. The effects of LIT were measured in a single-case A-B design, repeated in five children with developmental language disorders (ages 4;2-5;7 [years;months]). Conclusion: We conclude that implementation of LIT is possible if LIT is enriched with support in goal selection, protocols to guide therapy sessions, and training and coaching. In the single-case study, four children showed more growth in mean length of utterance during and directly following the LIT intervention phase, compared to the baseline phase with usual care, and in two of them, this difference was significant. The grammatical complexity measure "TARSP-P" showed an overall significantly higher score at group level during LIT, but limited effects on an individual level.
LINK
Purpose: Most speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working with children with developmental language disorder (DLD) do not perform language sample analysis (LSA) on a regular basis, although they do regard LSA as highly informative for goal setting and evaluating grammatical therapy. The primary aim of this study was to identify facilitators, barriers, and needs related to performing LSA by Dutch SLPs working with children with DLD. The secondary aim was to investigate whether a training would change the actual performance of LSA. Method: A focus group with 11 SLPs working in Dutch speech-language pathology practices was conducted. Barriers, facilitators, and needs were identified using thematic analysis and categorized using the theoretical domain framework. To address the barriers, a training was developed using software program CLAN. Changes in barriers and use of LSA were evaluated with a survey sent to participants before, directly after, and 3 months posttraining. Results: The barriers reported in the focus group were SLPs’ lack of knowledge and skills, time investment, negative beliefs about their capabilities, differences in beliefs about their professional role, and no reimbursement from health insurance companies. Posttraining survey results revealed that LSA was not performed more often in daily practice. Using CLAN was not the solution according to participating SLPs. Time investment remained a huge barrier. Conclusions: A training in performing LSA did not resolve the time investment barrier experienced by SLPs. User-friendly software, developed in codesign with SLPs might provide a solution. For the short-term, shorter samples, preferably from narrative tasks, should be considered.
