The purpose of this paper was to examine the findings of primary research studies which investigated the relationships of certain subject characteristics and language intervention efficacy with mentally retarded children. The technique of meta-analysis was used to integrate statistically the findings of 30 studies. Results indicate that (a) intervention has positive, immediate gains for retarded children across all characteristics examined; and (b) significant neurological involvement may impede intervention success. The relationships of intervention to other characteristics (age at which intervention begins, severity of handicap, and entrance level skills) were less clear, primarily due to the limited data available. Implications for future research are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndrewsG., GuitarB., & HowieP. (1980). Meta-analysis of the effects of stuttering treatment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 45, 287–307.
2.
BrickerD. D., & CarlsonL. (1981). Issues in early language intervention. InSchiefelbuschR. & BrickerD. D. (Eds.), Early Language: Acquisition and Intervention, (477–516). Baltimore: University Park Press.
3.
CarlbergC. G. (1979). Meta-analysis of special education treatment techniques. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Colorado.
4.
CarlbergC. G., JohnsonD. W., JohnsonR., MaruyamaG., KavaleK., KulikC-L., KulikJ. A., LysakowskiR. S., PflaumS. W., & WalbergH. J. (1984). Meta-analysis in education: A reply to Slavin. Educational Researcher, 13(8), 8.
5.
CastoG., & MastropieriM. A. (1986). The efficacy of early intervention programs for handicapped children: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 52, 417–424.
6.
CooperH. M. (1982). Scientific guidelines for conducting integrative research reviews. Review of Educational Research, 52, 291–302.
7.
Educational Research Service (1980, December). Class size research: A critique of recent meta-analysis. Kappan, 239–241.
8.
EysenckJ. J. (1978). An exercise in mega-silliness. American Psychologist, 33, 517.
9.
GalloP. S. (1978). Meta-analysis—A mixed meta-phor. American Psychologist, 33, 515–517.
10.
GarciaE. E., & DeHavenE. D. (1974). Use of operant techniques in the establishment and generalization of language: A review and analysis. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 79, 169–178.
11.
GlassG. V (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5, 3–8.
12.
GlassG. V (1978a). Integrated findings: The meta-analysis of research. Review of Research in Education, 5, 351–379.
13.
GlassG. V (1978b). Reply to Mansfield and Bussey. Educational Researcher, 7, 3.
14.
GlassG. V, McGawB., & SmithM. L. (1981). Meta-analysis in social research. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications.
15.
GoetzL., SchulerA., & SailorW. (1979). Teaching functional speech to the severely handi-capped: Current issues. Journal of Autism and De-velopmental Disorders, 9, 325–343.
16.
GreenwaldA. G. (1975). Consequences of preju-dice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bul-letin, 82, 1–20.
17.
GuessD., SailorW., & KoeghD. (1977). Language intervention programs and procedures for language handicapped children: A review of the literature. To-peka, KS: Kansas Neurological Report. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 177 770).
18.
JacksonG. B. (1980). Methods for integrative re-views. Review of Educational Research, 50, 438–460.
19.
KavaleK. (1981). Functions of the Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities (ITPA): Are they train-able?Exceptional Children, 47, 496–510.
20.
KiernanC. (1977). Alternatives to speech: A review of research on manual and other forms of com-munication with the mentally handicapped and other non-communicating populations. British Journal of Mental Subnormality, 23, 6–28.
21.
LennebergE. H. (1967). Biological foundations of language. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
22.
MansfieldR. S., & BusseyT. V. (1977). Meta-analysis of research: A rejoinder to Glass. Edu-cational Researcher, 6, 3.
23.
McGawB., & GlassG. V (1980) Choice of the metric for effect size in meta-analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 17, 325–337.
24.
PoultonK. T., & AlgozzineB. (1980). Manual communication and mental retardation: A review of research and implications. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 85, 145–152.
25.
RosenthalR. (1976). Experimenter effects in behavioral research. New York: Irvington.
SimpsonS. N. (1979). Comment on “meta-analysis of research on class size and achievement.”London, England: Institute of Education.
28.
SlavinR. (1984). Meta-analysis in education: How has it been used?Educational Researcher, 13, 8.
29.
SmithM. L. (1980a). Publication bias and meta-analysis. Evaluation in Education, 4, 22–24.
30.
SmithM. L. (1980b). Effects of aesthetics education on basic skills learning. Unpublished manuscript.
31.
SnyderL. K., LovittT. C., & SmithJ. O. (1975). Severely retarded: Five years of behavior analysis research. Exceptional Children, 7–15.
32.
TallmadgeG. K. (1977). Ideabook: The Joint Dissem-ination Review Panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Office of Education.
33.
WickstromJ., GoldsteinH., & JohnsonL. (1985). On the subject of subjects: Suggestions for de-scribing subjects in language intervention studies. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 50, 282–286.
