This study used structured analogue situations to examine factors that might influence teachers' preferences and opinions about language interventions. These factors included respondent groups (preschool vs. elementary school teachers), type of treatment approach (naturalistic vs. therapeutic), person delivering the intervention (classroom teacher vs. speech and language pathologist [SLP]), and severity of language delay (mild vs. severe). Sixty-six teachers (28 elementary and 38 preschool teachers) participated in this survey study. Results showed that preschool teachers found naturalistic approaches slightly more acceptable than the therapeutic approach, whereas elementary school teachers viewed the therapeutic approach as somewhat more acceptable than naturalistic approaches. Teachers rated three intervention approaches differently when they were applied to children with mild versus severe language delays. Implications for research and practice of these findings are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alpert, C.L., & Kaiser, A.P. (1992). Training parents as milieu language teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 16, 31-52.
2.
Bambara, L.M., & Warren S.F. (1993). Massed trials revisited: Appropriate applications in functional skill training. In R. A. Gable & S. F. Warren (Eds.), Strategies for teaching students with mild to severe mental retardation (pp. 165-190). London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers.
3.
Bricker, D.D. (1972). Imitative sign training as a facilitator of word-object association with low-functioning children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 76, 509-516.
4.
Calvert, S.C., & Johnston, C. (1990). Acceptability of treatments for child behavior problems: Issues and implications for future research. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 19, 61-74.
5.
Cole, K.N., & Dale, P.S. (1986). Direct language and interactive language instruction with language delayed preschool children: A comparison study. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 29, 206-217.
6.
Cronbach, L.J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
7.
Elliott, S.N. (1988). Acceptability of behavioral treatments: Review of variables that influence treatment selection. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 19, 68-80.
8.
Elliott, S.N., Witt, J.C., Galvin, G.A., & Peterson, R. (1984). Acceptability of positive and reductive behavioral interventions: Factors that influence teachers' decisions. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 353-360.
9.
Fey, M.E. (1986). Language intervention with young children. San Diego, CA: College-Hill Press.
10.
Halle, J.W. (1982). Teaching functional language to the handicapped: An integrative model of natural environment teaching techniques. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 7, 29-37.
11.
Hart, B., & Risley, T.R. (1975). Incidental teaching of language in the preschool . Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 8, 411-420.
12.
Hart, B., & Rogers-Warren, A. (1978). A milieu approach to teaching language. In R. L. Schiefelbusch (Ed.), Language intervention strategies (pp. 195-235). Baltimore: University Park Press.
13.
Hemmeter, M.L., & Kaiser, A.P. (1994). Enhanced milieu teaching: Effects of parent-implemented language intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 18, 269-289.
14.
Hepting. N.H., & Goldstein, H. (1996). What's natural about naturalistic language intervention?Journal of Early Intervention, 20, 249-265.
15.
Hester, P.P., Kaiser, A.P., Alpert, C.A., & White-man B. (1995). The generalized effects of training trainers to teach parents to implement milieu teaching. Journal of Early Intervention, 20, 30-51.
16.
Kaiser, A.P., Yoder, P., & Keetz, A. (1992). Evaluating milieu therapy. In S. F. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.), Causes and effects in communication language intervention (pp. 9-47). Baltimore: Brookes .
17.
Kazdin, A.E. (1980a). Acceptability of alternative treatments for deviant child behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 13, 259-273.
18.
Kazdin, A.E. (1980b). Acceptability of timeout from reinforcement procedures for disruptive child behavior. Behavior Therapy, 11, 329-344.
19.
Kazdin, A.E. (1981). Acceptability of child treatment techniques: The influence of treatment efficacy and adverse side effects. Behavior Therapy, 12, 493-506.
20.
McWilliam, R.A. (1996). Rethinking pull-out services in early intervention: A professional resource. Baltimore: Brookes.
21.
Miltenberger, R.G. (1990). Assessment of treatment acceptability: A review of the literature. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education , 10(3), 24-38.
22.
Reimers, T.M., Wacker, D.P., & Cooper, L.J. (1991). Evaluations of the acceptability of treatments for children's behavioral difficulties: Ratings by parents receiving services in an outpatient clinic. Child and Family Behavior Therapy , 13(2), 53-71.
23.
Reimers, T.M., Wacker, D.P., Derby, M.K., & Cooper, J.L. (1995). Relations between parental attributions and the acceptability of behavioral treatments for their child's behavior problems . Behavioral Disorders, 20, 171-178.
24.
Reimers, T.M., Wacker, D.P., & Koeppl, G. (1987). Acceptability of behavioral interventions: A review of the literature. School Psychology Review, 16, 212-227.
25.
Rogers-Warren, A.K., & Warren, S.F. (1980). Mands for verbalization: Facilitating the display of newly trained language in children. Behavior Modification , 4, 361-382.
26.
Rule, S., Losardo, A., Dinnebeil, L., Kaiser, A.P., & Rowland, C. (1998). Translating research on naturalistic instruction into practice. Journal of Early Intervention, 21, 283-293.
27.
Schwartz, I.S., & Baer, D.M. (1991). Social validity assessments: Is current practice state of the art?Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 24, 189-204.
28.
Tarnowski, K.J., & Simonian, S.J. (1992). Assessing treatment acceptance: The Abbreviated Acceptability Rating Profile. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry, 2, 101-106.
29.
Turnure, J.E. (1971). Types of verbal elaboration in the paired-associate performance of educable mentally retarded children. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 76, 306-312.
30.
Warren, S.F. (1985). Clinical strategies for the measurement of language generalization. In S. F. Warren & A. K. Rogers-Warren (Eds.), Teaching functional language: Language intervention series (pp. 197-224). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
31.
Wilcox, M.J., Kouri, T.A., & Caswell, S.B. (1991). Early language intervention: A comparison of classroom and individual treatment. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 1, 49-62.
32.
Wilcox, M.J., & Shannon, M.S. (1996). Integrated early intervention practices in speech-language pathology. In R.A. McWilliam (Ed.), Rethinking pull-out services in early intervention (pp. 217-242). Baltimore: Brookes.
33.
Witt, J.C., & Elliott, S.N. (1985). Acceptability of classroom management strategies . In T. R. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (Vol. 4, pp. 251-288). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
34.
Witt, J.C., & Martens, B.K. (1983). Assessing the acceptability of behavioral interventions used in classrooms. Psychology in the Schools, 20, 510-517.
35.
Witt, J.C., Moe, G., Gutkin, T.B., & Andrews, L. (1984). The effect of saying the same thing in different ways: The problem of language and jargon in school-based consultation. Journal of School Psychology, 22, 361∼367.
36.
Wolf, M.M. (1978). Social validity: The case for subjective measurement or how applied behavior analysis is finding its heart. Journal of Applied Behavioral Analysis, 11, 203-214.
37.
Wolery, M. (2000). Recommended practices in child-focused interventions . In S. Sandall, M. E. McLean, & B. J. Smith (Eds.), DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education (pp. 29-37). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
