Throwback (2012): One way to support your older students with DLD

If you serve students with developmental language disorders (DLD) in middle or high school, you’ve probably grappled with most of these problems: large caseloads, the impossible Tetris-game of scheduling pull-out sessions, a disconnect between therapy and classroom activities, time diverted to supporting missed or misunderstood class assignments, and difficulty connecting with general education teachers to co-plan or co-teach… to name just a few. So how do we navigate these hurdles to make meaningful changes for our students?

Back in 2012, Starling et al. took a novel approach to improving the language skills of a group of middle-grade students* (Australian Year 8, corresponding to the same grade in the U.S.) with language disorders: teaching the students’ teachers to modify their instructional language. This is taking a systemic approach to supporting students by targeting their environment and some of their most impactful communication partners—the ones delivering core academic instruction.

Teacher training addressed a few different areas, focusing on “practical and useable techniques”

  1. Modifying teacher’s written language in worksheets by breaking up large chunks of information, adding visuals, giving descriptions of vocab terms, and putting questions on the same page as the text they refer to.

  2. Modifying oral language by making directions explicit, giving extra processing time, rephrasing/repeating important points, and looking at the class when speaking.

  3. Visual strategies like lesson outlines, mind maps, and anchor charts/posters that the whole class participated in making.

  4. Vocabulary instruction techniques using the 3-tier system, adding extra opportunities to work with new words, and breaking down new words into roots and affixes.

Teachers met weekly individually or in small groups with the SLP for 10 weeks, and the SLP sat in on a few of each teachers’ lessons during that time to monitor how they put the strategies into practice. Click through to the article for specific examples of how lessons were modified based on the coaching process.

(An aside: We hear you, secondary-school SLP friends. This is WAY more access to gen-ed teachers than any of us are likely to have. Despite that, there are probably creative ways to implement something similar in your setting, even if you can’t follow the same schedule. If your school uses Professional Learning Communities, invests in peer coaching, or has other, regularly-occurring chances for professional development, you might be able to squirrel your way right in there! Administrators in charge of professional development stuff love coaching models—that’s how adults often learn best, after all—especially when they aren’t paying for an expensive outside consultant to deliver them.)

8.png

Compared to another school, randomly chosen to wait until the next term for the intervention, trained teachers successfully adopted the new strategies and kept up with them, even after the coaching was ended. Even better, their students with identified language disorders improved in a standardized measure of listening comprehension and written expression compared to the students at the other school, and maintained those gains after three months. Similar improvements didn’t show up in oral expression or reading comprehension, though. The authors acknowledge that this teacher-focused intervention isn’t enough for students with significant language needs—of course it’s not. Many (most… all…) of them will still benefit from individualized instruction in some areas. But this can be one layer in a “comprehensive model of service delivery in supporting secondary students with [language disorders].” And bonus? These kinds of teaching practices have benefits for ALL students, not just the ones with disabilities. If your school or district follows RTI/MTSS or Universal Design for Learning, SLP-delivered teacher coaching fits perfectly with those values.

 

*An important note: English learners were not included in the target student group.

Starling, J., Munro, N., Togher, L., & Arciuli, J. (2012). Training Secondary School Teachers in Instructional Language Modification Techniques to Support Adolescents With Language Impairment: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. doi:10.1044/0161-1461(2012/11-0066)

Tutorial Throwback (2014): Am I doing this right? Some under-the-hood tips to structuring language therapy

SLPs have to make LOTS of decisions about how to structure our therapy:

How many minutes do you see each student?

How much time should you spend on a single goal?

What type of activities should you use to target a specific goal?

 The list goes on…

The answer to these questions isn’t always clear (even when you consult the available research), so when an article comes along that tackles these issues, we get pretty excited! This 2014 article by Eisenberg reviewed the research to break down what SLPs need to know about treatment dosage, dose form (type of treatment the student receives), and treatment procedures. Note that the author decided to focus on specific aspects of language therapy rather than any particular packaged approach, which helps us think critically about what’s making a difference in children’s success.

Language and education researchers have borrowed the concept of dose from our friends in medicine. While we might not typically talk about language services in terms of dosage, this analogy actually works really well in helping us think about our therapy and its “active ingredients.”  Imagine a kindergarten student with a goal of using progressive forms who is seen weekly for 30 minutes. In this case, dose would be the number of targets given per session (“Spiderman is swinging” and “Minnie is laughing” would be two), and frequency would be the amount of time the dose is given (30-minute weekly sessions).

We know that children with developmental language disorders (DLD) need a higher dosage than their typically-developing peers to learn new words and new grammatical forms, but just how much more? The article provides some numbers for comparison:

Screen Shot 2019-06-14 at 12.03.46 PM.png

For frequency, it seems that spaced exposure (compared to mass exposure) leads to better learning. So a student receiving a consecutive 60-minute session (mass exposure) may not be benefiting as much as a peer who receives two 30-minute sessions (spaced exposure).

So now we can talk about what the dose (language input) should actually look like. Here are some general guidelines for teaching specific grammatical targets (e.g., passives, bound morphemes). You should:

Vary the surrounding vocabulary

  • Children learn forms better when they’re combined with different vocabulary

  • e.g. The boy was scolded. This cat was licked.

Keep the target consistent across trials

  • Children acquire rules better when exceptions are limited 

  • e.g. She walks. / He runs……….. Instead of: She walks. / I walk.

Speak in grammatical (not telegraphic) sentences

  • There’s no compelling evidence that telegraphic speech improves comprehension

  • Children need grammatical models to produce grammatical forms

  • Children use grammatical knowledge to understand sentences and learn new words

  • e.g. The boy helps his mama…….. Instead of: Help mama.

Finally, for treatment procedures, therapy activities range from least natural (e.g., drills) to most natural (e.g., literacy based interventions or conversation activity). There seems to be a trade-off, with imitation training giving you quicker short-term gains, but activities like recasts being more important for spontaneous productions.

Screen Shot 2019-06-14 at 4.02.07 PM.png

Lots to think about, right? Now, while this information certainly doesn’t answer all our questions, it’s a good framework that can help SLPs think about why something in therapy may (or may not) be working and making meaningful improvements to our sessions.

Looking for more about dose and treatment intensity? Check out our blog post on that topic from 2018.

Eisenberg, S. (2014). What works in therapy: Further thoughts on improving clinical practice for children with language disorders. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. doi:10.1044/2014_LSHSS-14-0021

And more...

Esmaeeli et al. found that family history is the biggest predictor of reading disorders in children at the end of second grade, but emergent literacy and oral language skills also played a role. As SLPs, we should always be taking family history into account when screening or testing for reading disorders.

Two studies this month looked at standardized language tests for Spanish–English bilingual children. Fitton et al. studied the sentence repetition task from the Bilingual English–Spanish Assessment (BESA) and found that it was a valid measure of morphosyntax in both Spanish and English. Wood & Schatschneider studied the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4) and found that it was biased against Spanish–English dual language learners (see also this review).

Méndez & Simon-Cereijido looked at Spanish–English bilingual preschoolers with developmental language disorder* (DLD) and found that children with better Spanish vocabulary skills also had better English grammar skills. They suggest targeting vocabulary in students’ home language to support English learning.

In a survey of nearly 3000 children, Reinhartsen et al. found that children with autism are significantly more likely to have higher expressive language skills than receptive. Children with this profile tended to have more severe delays and more significantly impaired language overall compared to children without this profile.

Rudolph et al. studied the diagnostic accuracy of finite verb morphology composite (FVMC) scores. Unlike previous studies, they found that FVMC wasn’t good at identifying 6-year-olds with developmental language disorder (DLD). The difference might be due to a larger, more representative sample of children. (NOTE: “The FVMC is derived from a spontaneous language sample, in either a free-play or elicited narrative scenario, and reflects the percent occurrence in obligatory contexts of eight T/A morphemes: regular past tense –ed, 3S, and present tense uncontracted and contracted copula and auxiliary BE forms (am, is, are).” ~Rudolph et al., 2019)

Verschuur et al. studied two types of parent training in Pivotal Response Treatment (PRT), finding that both group and individual training improved parents’ ability to create communication opportunities and increased children’s initiations. Furthermore, group training had additional benefits for parents’ stress levels and feelings of self-efficacy. The authors suggest that combining group and individual sessions might be a good way to build parents’ skills while conserving resources.

Venker et al. surveyed SLPs about their use of telegraphic speech. The vast majority of SLPs reported using telegraphic input for commenting on play, prompting for verbal imitations, and giving directions. However, only 18% of SLPs reported that they felt telegraphic speech is useful, which doesn’t make much sense! More research is needed to help align SLP practices and perspectives for use of telegraphic input. (Editors’ note = Perhaps it’s just a habit that’s hard to break? Even culturally influenced?)

 

*Note: The children in this study were those with Specific Language Impairment (SLI), which refers to children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) and normal nonverbal intelligence. We use DLD throughout our website for consistency purposes (read more here).

 

Esmaeeli, Z., Kyle, F.E., & Lundetræ, K. (2019). Contribution of family risk, emergent literacy and environmental protective factors in children’s reading difficulties at the end of second-grade. Reading and Writing. doi:10.1007/s11145-019-09948-5.

Fitton, L., Hoge, R., Petscher, Y., & Wood, C. (2019). Psychometric evaluation of the Bilingual English-Spanish Assessment sentence repetition task for clinical decision making. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi:10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-1

Méndez, L. I., & Simon-Cereijido, G. (2019). A view of the lexical-grammatical link in young latinos with specific language impairment using language-specific and conceptual measures. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi:10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0315

Reinhartsen, D.B., Tapia, A.L., Watson, L., Crais, E., Bradley, C., Fairchild, J., Herring, A.H., & Daniels, J. (2019). Expressive dominant versus receptive dominant language patterns in young children: Findings from the study to explore early development. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. doi:10.1007/s10803-019-03999-x

Rudolph, J. M., Dollaghan, C. A., & Crotteau, S. (2019). Finite verb morphology composite: Values from a community sample. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi:10.1044/2019_JSLHR-L-18-0437 

Venker, C.E., Yasick, M., & McDaniel, J. (2019). Using telegraphic input with children with language delays: A survey of speech-language pathologists’ practices and perspectives. American Journal of Speech–Language Pathology. doi:10.1044/2018_AJSLP-18-0140

Verschuur, R., Huskens, B. & Didden, R. (2019). Effectiveness of Parent Education in Pivotal Response Treatment on Pivotal and Collateral Responses. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. doi:10.1007/s10803-019-04061-6

Wood, C., & Schatschneider, C. (2019). Item bias: Predictors of accuracy on Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-Fourth Edition items for Spanish-English-speaking children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi: 10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0145  

Teaching grammar to kids with ASD—How explicit should we be?

7.png

We know that the language skills of children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) vary… a lot. While some children are impaired across all language domains, others have weaknesses in just a few. For example, one subgroup of children with ASD have a relative weakness in grammar compared to the other domains. For kids with impairments in grammar, it is common practice to use an implicit intervention approach.

Perhaps you use implicit strategies with your clients? Do you show them pictures, model, and provide corrective feedback and recasts (e.g., “That’s right! The dog is running!”)? These are all implicit (you’re basically bombarding the child with correct productions and hoping that it sticks). Sometimes, though, you might feel that implicit isn’t enough. With some of your clients, do you ever find it helpful to explicitly provide the grammatical rule that you’re working on (e.g., we add -ing because it’s an action word)?

The authors of this study wanted to see whether adding an explicit component to intervention would be advantageous for children with ASD*. Seventeen children with ASD (ages 4–10) were taught two novel grammatical forms by either a combined explicit–implicit approach or an implicit-only approach. The combined approach differed in one way—the rule was described to the kids during intervention, which ended up being advantageous. More children learned the rules and used the novel forms during the combined explicit–implicit approach compared to the implicit-only approach.  

So if you’re working with kids with ASD with grammatical weaknesses, should you present the rules during intervention? At this point, it’s worth a try. The authors did question the generalizability of the results because the sample in the study was not very diverse (all subjects were verbal with mild-moderate ASD); so while the explicit component could be helpful for some of your students, it’s important to keep this limitation in mind.

*Got deja vu? We’ve reviewed another study from this lab on explicit grammar intervention before, but that one looked at children with developmental language disorders (DLD).  This study extends those findings to a new population!

 

Bangert, K. J., Halverson, D. M., & Finestack, L. H. (2019). Evaluation of an explicit instructional approach to teach grammatical forms to children with low-symptom severity Autism Spectrum Disorder. American Journal of Speech–Language Pathology. doi:10.1044/2018_AJSLP-18-0016

Training natural communication partners how to model AAC

Model, model, model! We all know how important and effective AAC modeling can be (see here and here, for example)—however, modeling is only as good as the partners who are implementing it. If you’re working with kids who use AAC, chances are there are communication partners who need guidance in how to model, and that’s no simple task. If you’re thinking “I agree, but HOW do I teach the partners?”, this review is for you!

The authors of this study gathered 29 studies in which more than 250 communication partners (including peers, teachers, paraprofessionals, parents, and other adults) implemented modeling strategies across various settings. Although they looked at a handful of research questions, the most clinically relevant questions were: How were the communication partners trained and what did they have to say about the training they received?

The most common training strategies were:

  • orally sharing information

  • modeling the strategies, and

  • allowing the partners to practice in controlled settings (role plays), or with a child, while providing feedback

1.png

Overall, partners rated instruction as worth the time, easy to understand, practical, and transferable to other children. Some additionally offered the suggestion to provide more direction on how to model during a child’s regularly occurring activities (something to consider when you are providing training).

Seems pretty straightforward, right? We train the partners using those strategies and then off they go? Not so fast. The authors found that most communication partners also benefited from simultaneous support while learning to model. So after you train the partners, it’s important that you stick around to offer coaching and consultation as necessary.

If this seems daunting (how can I possibly fit this into my already jam-packed day!?), it’s important to remember that teaching communication partners can drastically improve the reach of our interventions—the amount of time we spend with our students is so limited compared to their interactions with natural communication partners.

If partner instruction is something you’d like to improve, be sure to check out the full article (specifically Table 2) for a list of the included studies and the training strategies used in each.

 

Biggs, E. E., Carter, E. W., & Gilson, C. B. (2019). A scoping review of the involvement of children's communication partners in aided augmentative and alternative communication modeling interventions. American Journal of Speech–Language Pathology. doi: 10.1044/2018_AJSLP-18-0024

Better word learning through repeated retrieval

With vocabulary, there’s a tendency to talk about “teaching” and “probing” as two separate things, with too much of the latter getting in the way of the former. But as it turns out, asking your students to recall words you’ve recently taught them can be an important part of teaching. Depending on where you got your SLP training, concepts like “spaced retrieval” may have been part of your curriculum in adult cognitive therapy, but we can apply those same ideas to working with our preschool-aged friends with developmental language disorder (DLD) as well! We know our young clients with DLD struggle to learn new words, and vocabulary deficits can snowball over time, with negative effects on literacy and language, so anything we can do to improve that process is definitely worth knowing about.

In the first of a pair of studies from Leonard, Haebig, and colleagues, the authors taught novel (meaning, invented) words to a group of preschoolers (about age 5) with and without DLD. Half the words were taught with a procedure called repeated retrieval with contextual reinstatement (RRCR), that worked like this:

  1. Learn a new target word (see a picture paired with 3 exposures to the word and a simple definition)

  2. Prompt to recall (retrieve) that word, then hear the name/definition again (study the word)

  3. Learn 3 more words

  4. Retrieve the target word again, then study the word

  5. Learn 3 more words

  6. Retrieve the target word a third time, then study the word

6.png

The “contextual reinstatement” part of RRCR comes from the fact that the attempts to retrieve the word are broken up by exposures to different words (in steps 3 and 5 above). The other half of the words were taught with the same procedure, but without the prompts to recall the word, so at steps 2, 4, and 6, the children just got the additional chances to study the target word.

For children with and without DLD, the repeated retrieval condition resulted in better word learning (about 2.5 more word forms recalled out of 8 in a labeling task, and 1 more definition) both 5 minutes and 1 week after teaching. Note that the same advantage didn’t hold if they were tested using a multiple-choice format (think the PPVT), which is an easier task than naming pictures. An even cooler part of the results? The children with DLD did just as well as the typically-developing kids, with the same number of exposures to the target words.

And how important is that “contextual reinstatement” piece, anyway? That’s the question the second of the two studies examined. They compared a slightly different RRCR protocol with immediate retrieval, where kids needed to recall taught words right after learning them, without other words being presented in between:

  • Immediate retrieval: Learn a word, retrieve and study that word three times, then repeat with two other words. 

  • RRCR: Learn a word, retrieve and study that word once, then repeat with two other words. Then retrieve/study the three words alternately, twice through (1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3). 

Similar to the previous results, the kids were much better at remembering words learned via RRCR. So it’s not just the retrieval aspect that’s important, but needing to retrieve information after thinking about something else in between. So while there’s still more to learn (How many words can you teach at a time via this method? What’s the best retrieval schedule to use?), this is a powerful concept that you can bring to your own intervention.

 

Leonard, L. B., Karpicke, J., Deevy, P., Weber, C., Christ, S., Haebig, E., … Krok, W. (2019). Retrieval-Based Word Learning in Young Typically Developing Children and Children With Developmental Language Disorder I: The Benefits of Repeated Retrieval. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0070

Haebig, E., Leonard, L. B., Deevy, P., Karpicke, J., Christ, S. L., Usler, E., … Weber, C. (2019). Retrieval-Based Word Learning in Young Typically Developing Children and Children With Development Language Disorder II: A Comparison of Retrieval Schedules. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0071

And more...

Recently, we reviewed a study showing that young children with less-developed self-regulation skills needed more time in fluency therapy, and the authors recommended addressing self-regulation concurrently with fluency. But how do you do that? Druker et al. (the team behind that other study) are back with one possible way: training parents to deliver intervention in resilience. Children whose parents received this training reduced emotional and behavioral issues compared to a group who only received fluency therapy. Check out the appendices for examples of the resilience-boosting activities parents were trained to use.  

Ebert et al. studied the relationships among bilingualism, developmental language disorder (DLD), and attention. They found that bilingualism was not related to improved attention (so, no evidence for a hypothesized “bilingual cognitive advantage”), but that DLD was associated with poorer attention skills in both mono- and bilingual children.

Gremp et al. found that children who are DHH have difficulty with nameable visual sequencing tasks (think: the circle handheld Simon game that lights up) compared to hearing peers, which positively predicted receptive vocabulary scores. This highlights the difficulty with both sequencing and describing abstract concepts often experienced by this population. Keep in mind that these were DHH children in primarily spoken English environments, with little-to-no ASL access. The discussion section dives into a deeper discussion of possible causes of these deficits.

Herman et al. examined the literacy skills of oral deaf (OD) children and compared them with another group known to struggle with reading—hearing children with dyslexia. In both groups, letter sound knowledge, phonological skills, and rapid automatic naming abilities were helpful measures for identifying poor readers. Compared with the hearing group, OD children’s skills in phoneme deletion and vocabulary were lower, and also useful for predicting literacy outcomes. The authors discuss implications for literacy assessment and intervention, so check out the full article if you work with this population.

Hessling & Brimo studied the micro- and macrostructure of narrative retells produced by children with Down Syndrome. They describe general patterns of strengths and weaknesses across the children, and found that narrative measures were correlated with both word-level reading and reading comprehension skills. They recommend narrative analysis as a useful assessment and intervention-planning tool for this population.

Nonword repetition is thought to be a non-biased task with high clinical utility for diagnosing language disorders. But if you’re using this task to assess speakers of non-mainstream dialects, McDonald & Oetting suggest you measure the density of non-mainstream forms (through language sampling, an assessment like the DELV, or listener judgments) as part of your assessment, because their new study shows that dialect density can affect nonword repetition scores.

Robinson & Norton examined US national data from 2004–2014 and determined that black American students were disproportionately classified as speech or language impaired in three-quarters of the states. In most cases, these students were over-represented, but some states (those with a larger density of black residents) were likely to under-represent.

 

Druker, K. C., Mazzucchelli, T. G., & Beilby, J. M. (2019). An evaluation of an integrated fluency and resilience program for early developmental stuttering disorders. Journal of Communication Disorders. doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2019.02.002

Ebert, K. D., Rak, D., Slawny, C. M., & Fogg, L. (2019). Attention in Bilingual Children With Developmental Language Disorder. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0221

Gremp, M. A., Deocampo, J. A., Walk, A. M., & Conway, C. M. (2019). Visual sequential processing and language ability in children who are deaf or hard of hearing. Journal of Child Language. doi:10.1017/s0305000918000569

Herman, R., E. Kyle, F., & Roy, P. (2019). Literacy and Phonological Skills in Oral Deaf Children and Hearing Children With a History of Dyslexia. Reading Research Quarterly. doi:10.1002/rrq.244

Hessling, A., & Brimo, D. M. (2019). Spoken fictional narrative and literacy skills of children with Down syndrome. Journal of Communication Disorders. doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2019.03.005

McDonald, J. L., & Oetting, J. B. (2019). Nonword Repetition Across Two Dialects of English: Effects of Specific Language Impairment and Nonmainstream Form Density. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research. doi:10.1044/2018_JSLHR-L-18-0253

Robinson, G. C., & Norton, P. C. (2019). A Decade of Disproportionality: A State-Level Analysis of African American Students Enrolled in the Primary Disability Category of Speech or Language Impairment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. doi:10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17-0149

Individual vs. group language sessions: Does it matter?

8.png

The only way that most school SLPs can even hope to schedule their caseloads is to see children in groups. Unfortunately, we don’t have much evidence on how grouping affects children’s progress. Groups might be distracting—or, children may actually benefit from hearing the teaching directed toward their peers.

Eidsvåg and colleagues treated a group of preschoolers with developmental language disorder (DLD) and morphological errors either individually or in pairs. The researchers selected a target and a control morpheme for each child. For children in the group condition, they also tracked a third “ambient” morpheme—the one that their peer was learning. The children received enhanced conversational recast treatment, where clinicians get children’s attention before recasting their errors using a variety of verbs. Each child heard 24 recasts of their target morpheme per session, which means that children in the group condition also heard 24 recasts of their partner’s target morpheme.  

Confirming earlier studies, the researchers found that the treatment was effective. Children in both conditions were better at using their targeted morpheme (but not their control morpheme) after 5 weeks of sessions. Gains in the individual vs. group conditions were similar, but children in the group condition did not improve on their peers’ target morphemes (meaning kids aren’t necessarily learning from instruction directed to their fellow group members).

So, it looks like group treatment for morphology is as effective as individual treatment, at least when the groups are small and when the dosage* of teaching episodes is the same. We can’t stress this point enough, though—kids got the exact same amount of teaching in each condition. In a mixed group of 4 kids, that probably won’t happen, and these results might not hold.

Psst! Check out Elena Plante’s advice for SLPs on keeping track of variability and dose during enhanced conversational recast sessions in a note on this review.

*Want to think more on dosage? Scan down to Schmitt et al., here, and also read here.

 

Eidsvåg, S. S., Plante, E., Oglivie, T., Privette, C., & Mailend, M.-L. (2019). Individual versus small group treatment of morphological errors for children with developmental language disorder. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. doi:10.1044/2018_LSHSS-18-0033

It’s 10 AM: Do you know where your gym teacher is?

When you hear “cotreatment,” what other professionals spring to mind? OTs? PTs? How about your friendly neighborhood adapted phys ed teacher? In this study, an SLP and an adapted PE teacher (I’m guessing they don’t like to be called APEs?) teamed up to teach concept vocabulary to 10 pre-kindergarteners with Down Syndrome.

Why target vocabulary in gym class? A couple of reasons. One, having physical experiences related to a new word increases the semantic richness of the learning—something that we know helps kids. Two, a branch of developmental theory (dynamic systems theory, if you’re interested!) holds that language and motor skills develop in a coordinated, interconnected way. Plus? Getting up and moving during your vocab lesson is fun!

9.png

Each week, five different concept words were targeted by the SLP only, the adapted PE teacher only, or both in a co-treatment condition. Teaching occurred in 30-minute large group lessons, four days per week for nine weeks total. Check out the article for specifics about what the lessons looked like in each condition—the key thing is that with co-treatment, the kids got to demonstrate receptive understanding of the concepts through a variety of gross motor actions.

Overall, the intervention had a weak effect with only the PE teacher (makes sense, since teaching words isn’t the point of gym), and a medium effect if the SLP was involved. Out of the ten children, four learned more concepts in co-treatment weeks as compared to weeks when the SLP or PE teacher worked alone. The other six did about the same either way. The authors noticed that the kids who learned better in co-treatment were the children with the highest non-verbal intelligence scores and better ability to use effortful control (so, for example, stopping when a grownup says to stop), but more research is needed to draw strong conclusions from those results. Big picture, here? This type of co-treatment, when done thoughtfully and collaboratively, doesn’t hurt and may help some kids. Also, when many of us are trying to get out of the therapy room and treat kids where they are, bringing intervention to gym class makes a lot of sense from a “least restrictive” point of view. And once again… it’s fun!

 

Lund, E., Young, A., & Yarbrough, R. (2019). The Effects of Co-Treatment on Concept Development in Children With Down Syndrome. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 1525740119827264. doi:10.1177/1525740119827264