Explore the vast range of titles available.

Purpose: Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in the schools provide services to students with a variety of disorders and severity levels. This study built upon a previously published survey (Brandel & Loeb, 2011) to examine whether factors related to the place and time for services for students with language disorders had changed since the 2008 survey and to examine the differentiation of decisions made by the SLPs across the three severity levels. Method: Responses from 439 SLPs to an online national survey related to the place and time of services for students with language disorders were examined using regression in regard to the current factors impacting service delivery and the amount of variation in these decisions by the individual SLPs across the three severity levels. Results: Similar to previous findings, students participated in services primarily in groups outside the classroom once or twice a week for 20-30 min. Factors that continued to impact decisions were the SLP's caseload and year of graduation. Related to the differentiation of decisions, most SLPs made two different decisions across the three severity levels for where and how long to provide services, while almost one third made the same decision for the place. Conclusions: The results indicate that service delivery and the factors impacting it have remained relatively the same. While most SLPs do differentiate decisions related to time, less variation is observed regarding the place for services. Research is needed to clearly identify barriers and test possible solutions so that school practice can improve.

Purpose: School-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) routinely work with team members to make recommendations regarding an intervention program's intensity and method of service delivery for children with speech and language impairments. In this study, student, SLP, and workplace characteristics that may influence SLPs' recommendations were examined. Method: Almost 2,000 school-based SLPs completed an online survey about the factors they consider when making recommendations regarding program intensity and service delivery model that students on their caseloads receive. Results: SLPs reported that student characteristics, rather than SLP or workplace characteristics, were the factors they considered the most when making these recommendations. However, these same SLPs reported that current students on their caseload with severe to moderate disabilities participated in intervention 2-3 times a week for 20-30 min in groups outside of the classroom. Students with the least severe disability received intervention 1 time a week for 20-30 min in groups outside of the classroom. Conclusion: The limited variety of intervention program intensities and service delivery models used suggests that student characteristics may not be the most important factor considered when making intervention recommendations, as reported by the SLPs. Instead, caseload size and years of practice appear to influence SLPs' recommendations regarding which program intensity and service delivery models to use.

Purpose: School-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) routinely work with team members to make recommendations regarding an intervention program's intensity and method of service delivery for children with speech and language impairments. In this study, student, SLP, and workplace characteristics that may influence SLPs' recommendations were examined. Method: Almost 2,000 school-based SLPs completed an online survey about the factors they consider when making recommendations regarding program intensity and service delivery model that students on their caseloads receive. Results: SLPs reported that student characteristics, rather than SLP or workplace characteristics, were the factors they considered the most when making these recommendations. However, these same SLPs reported that current students on their caseload with severe to moderate disabilities participated in intervention 2-3 times a week for 20-30 min in groups outside of the classroom. Students with the least severe disability received intervention 1 time a week for 20-30 min in groups outside of the classroom. Conclusion: The limited variety of intervention program intensities and service delivery models used suggests that student characteristics may not be the most important factor considered when making intervention recommendations, as reported by the SLPs. Instead, caseload size and years of practice appear to influence SLPs' recommendations regarding which program intensity and service delivery models to use. Key Words: school intervention, service delivery, dosage, survey

Diane Frome Loeb The University of Kansas, Lawrence LaVae M. Hoffman University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City Thomas Bohman Craig A. Champlin The University of Texas at Austin Linda Thibodeau The University of Texas at Dallas Judith Widen Jayne Brandel The University of Kansas, Lawrence Sandy Friel-Patti The University of Texas at Dallas Contact author: Ronald B. Gillam, Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education, 1000 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322. E-mail: ron.gillam{at}usu.edu . Purpose: A randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the language and auditory processing outcomes of children assigned to receive the Fast ForWord Language intervention (FFW-L) with the outcomes of children assigned to nonspecific or specific language intervention comparison treatments that did not contain modified speech. Method: Two hundred sixteen children between the ages of 6 and 9 years with language impairments were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 conditions: (a) Fast ForWord Language (FFW-L), (b) academic enrichment (AE), (c) computer-assisted language intervention (CALI), or (d) individualized language intervention (ILI) provided by a speech-language pathologist. All children received 1 hr and 40 min of treatment, 5 days per week, for 6 weeks. Language and auditory processing measures were administered to the children by blinded examiners before treatment, immediately after treatment, 3 months after treatment, and 6 months after treatment. Results: The children in all 4 conditions improved significantly on a global language test and a test of backward masking. Children with poor backward masking scores who were randomized to the FFW-L condition did not present greater improvement on the language measures than children with poor backward masking scores who were randomized to the other 3 conditions. Effect sizes, analyses of standard error of measurement, and normalization percentages supported the clinical significance of the improvements on the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (E. Carrow-Woolfolk, 1999). There was a treatment effect for the Blending Words subtest of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (R. K. Wagner, J. K. Torgesen, & C. A. Rashotte, 1999). Participants in the FFW-L and CALI conditions earned higher phonological awareness scores than children in the ILI and AE conditions at the 6-month follow-up testing. Conclusion: Fast ForWord Language, the intervention that provided modified speech to address a hypothesized underlying auditory processing deficit, was not more effective at improving general language skills or temporal processing skills than a nonspecific comparison treatment (AE) or specific language intervention comparison treatments (CALI and ILI) that did not contain modified speech stimuli. These findings call into question the temporal processing hypothesis of language impairment and the hypothesized benefits of using acoustically modified speech to improve language skills. The finding that children in the 3 treatment conditions and the active comparison condition made clinically relevant gains on measures of language and temporal auditory processing informs our understanding of the variety of intervention activities that can facilitate development. KEY WORDS: Fast ForWord, language intervention, auditory processing, clinical trial CiteULike     Connotea     Del.icio.us     Digg     Facebook     Reddit     Technorati     Twitter     What's this?

Purpose: This study investigated the psychometric properties of 2 oral language measures that are commonly used for diagnostic purposes with school-age children who have language impairments. Method: Two hundred sixteen children with specific language impairment were assessed with the Test of Language Development--Primary, Third Edition (TOLD-P:3; Newcomer & Hammill, 1997) and the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL; Carrow-Woolfolk, 1999) within a 3-month period. The concurrent and construct validities of these 2 published tests were explored through correlation analysis and principle-component factor analysis. Results: The TOLD-P:3 Spoken Language Quotient and CASL Core Composite scores were found to have an intertest correlation value of r = 0.596 within this sample, and a paired samples \"t\" test revealed a statistically significant difference between these scores. Principle-component factor analyses revealed a 2-factor structure solution for the TOLD-P:3, whereas data from the CASL supported a single-factor model. Conclusions: Analyses of assessment measure performance data from a sample of school-age children with specific language impairment revealed concurrent validity values and construct validity patterns that differed from those found in the norming samples as cited in examiner manuals. Implications for practice patterns and future research are discussed.

Ronald B. Gillam Utah State University, Logan LaVae Hoffman The University of Virginia, Charlottesville Jayne Brandel Janet Marquis The University of Kansas Contact author: Diane Loeb, University of Kansas, Department of Speech-Language-Hearing, 3042 Dole Building, Lawrence, KA 66045-2181. E-mail: dianelo{at}ku.edu . Purpose: To examine the efficacy of Fast ForWord Language (FFW-L) and 2 other interventions for improving the phonemic awareness and reading skills of children with specific language impairment with concurrent poor reading skills. Method: A total of 103 children (age 6;0 to 8;11 [years;months]) with language impairment and poor reading skills participated. The children received either FFW-L computerized intervention, a computer-assisted language intervention (CALI), an individualized language intervention (ILI), or an attention control (AC) computer program. Results: The children in the FFW-L, CALI, and ILI conditions made significantly greater gains in blending sounds in words compared with the AC group at immediate posttest. Long-term gains 6 months after treatment were not significant but yielded a medium effect size for blending sounds in words. None of the interventions led to significant changes in reading skills. Conclusion: The improvement in phonemic awareness, but not reading, in the FFW-L, CALI, and ILI interventions limits their use with children who have language impairment and poor reading skills. Similar results across treatment conditions suggest that acoustically modified speech was not a necessary component for improving phonemic awareness. Key Words: Fast ForWord Language, specific language impairment, phonological awareness, word reading, evidence-based intervention CiteULike     Connotea     Del.icio.us     Digg     Facebook     Reddit     Technorati     Twitter     What's this?

The purpose of this study was to examine factors impacting the amount of time and place school-based Speech-Language Pathologists (SLPs) provided speech and language intervention. A national survey completed by 1,897 school SLPs indicated that students with severe and moderate disabilities participated in intervention 2-3 times a week for 20-30 minutes in groups outside the classroom. Students with the least severe disability were provided therapy once a week for 20-30 minutes in groups outside the classroom. Analysis using multinomial logistic regression indicated the amount of time was impacted by the SLP’s caseload size, their year of graduation and the number of years worked in the schools. For place, the SLP’s caseload size and clinical training experiences influenced their selection. These findings suggest that workplace and SLP characteristics impact SLP decisions; whereas, child characteristics did not differentiate time and place of services. Implications for training programs and future research are discussed.