Throwback Pub (2012): Training parents to support children with developmental language disorder

As SLPs working in EI, we know that developmental language disorder presents risk for later academic skills. We also know that parent-implemented language interventions can be effective (see Roberts & Kaiser, 2011, for a meta-analysis of parent-implemented language interventions). This study examined whether parent-implemented Enhanced Milieu Teaching (EMT) would impact receptive and expressive language growth in children with language disorder (with cognitive standard score > 80 and no other primary diagnoses; see article for full inclusion/exclusion criteria).

The researchers examined three groups of 24–42-month old children:

  • Typical language
  • Language disorder w/ no treatment, or a “wait-and-see” approach
  • Language disorder w/ parent-implemented Enhanced Milieu Teaching
6.png

Families treatment group participated in parent training in 28 sessions (workshops, clinic, and home visits) over a three-month period. EMT strategies were trained in four phases: 1) setting a communicative context, 2) modeling and expanding communication, 3) time delay strategies, and 4) prompting strategies (see Table 5 for examples and description). During training at the clinic, therapists and parents practiced strategies using a specific set of toys. Home visits also included integrating strategies into functional family routines such as snack. All children were assessed with monthly language samples (MLU, total words, different words) plus the Preschool Language Scale, Fourth Edition (PLS-4), at the beginning and end of the study.

So what happened? Parent-implemented EMT was effective for improving language outcomes for children with LI, and parents in the treatment group used significantly more strategies than either other group! Parent use of strategies for typically-developing children and those with language disorder undergoing “wait and see” were about the same.

Children whose parents used EMT

  • significantly improved their PLS-4 Total and Expressive Communication scores and gained an average of 50 more words than untreated children with language disorder
  • gained an average of 15 more words per month compared to untreated children with language disorder
  • grew at about the same rate as children with typical language

Fantastic, right? But what about the kids with language disorder undergoing a “wait and see” approach? They showed significantly slower growth. Not only did those “wait and see” kids start out with lower language abilities, it looks like “waiting and seeing” might just hold them at a disadvantage when compared to those who have access to intervention. The authors stated, “Children in the LI-control group did not catch up but fell farther behind their peers with TL.”

How about a little extra info? The authors also looked at which child characteristics predicted language growth and outcomes. They examined risk at birth (e.g., a NICU stay), cognitive skills, and receptive skills (based on the Bayley-III scores). Risk at birth and cognitive skills were not predictive of expressive language analyses performed. However, “Receptive language at the start of the study predicted growth in language for all three groups of children after controlling for differences in IQ.”

The authors note that more research is needed to determine long-term outcomes. For example, how would these children progress over a period of 12 months? What kind of gains would come from 28 hours of traditional therapy in 3 months? Overall, parent-implemented EMT looks to be a promising model to add to our intervention options for young children with developmental language disorder.

Note: For our bilingual SLPs, see Peredo, Zelaya, & Kaiser, 2017 for a study on adapting parent-implemented EMT for Spanish-Speaking families.

 

Roberts, M. Y., & Kaiser, A. P. (2012). Assessing the effects of a parent-implemented language intervention for children with language impairments using empirical benchmarks: A pilot study. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research55(6), 1655-1670.