The participants in this study were 4 children diagnosed with Expressive Language Disorder who displayed poor imitation skills, with scores significantly below typical levels on the Sentence Imitation subtest of the Test of Language Development-2: Primary (Newcomer & Hammill, 1988). The purpose of this study was to compare the treatment effects of both naturalistic (conversational recast) treatment and analog treatment in these participants. The results indicate that children with poor preintervention imitation skills required higher numbers of analog presentations to establish production of the language structures than was observed under the naturalistic treatment. Clinical implications of these results are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Psychiatric Association. (1994). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders (4th ed.). Washington, DC: Author .
2.
Arthur, G. (1952). The Arthur adaptation of the Leiter International Performance Scale. Chicago: Stoelting .
3.
Camarata, S. (1991). Assessment of oral language. In S. Salvia & J. Ysseldyke (Eds.), Assessment in special and remedial education (5th ed., pp. 263—301). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
4.
Camarata, S. (2000). The pragmatics of paediatric language intervention: Issues and anlaysis. In N. Muller (Ed.), Pragmatics in speech and language pathology: Studies in clinical applications (pp. 139—159). Amsterdam/ Philadelphia: John Benjamins Publishing.
5.
Camarata, S., & Nelson, K. (1992). Treatment efficiency as a function of target selection in the remediation of child language disorders. Clinical Linguistics and Phonetics, 6, 167—178.
6.
Camarata, S., Nelson, K.E., & Camarata, M. (1994). A comparison of conversation based to imitation based procedures for training grammatical structures in specifically language impaired children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research , 37, 1414—1423.
7.
Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1974). Carrow elicited language inventory. Austin, TX: Learning Concepts.
8.
Carrow-Woolfolk, E. (1985). Test of the auditory comprehension of language-Revised . Allen, TX: DLM.
9.
Connell, P. (1987). An effect of modeling and imitation teaching procedures on children with and without specific language impairment. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 30, 105—113.
10.
Connell, P., & Stone, C. (1992). Morpheme learning of children with specific language impairment under controlled instructional conditions. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 35, 844—852.
11.
Delprato, D.J. (2001). Comparison of discrete-trial and normalized behavioral language intervention for young children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 31, 315—325.
12.
Gray, B., & Ryan, B. (1973). A language program for the nonlanguage child. Champaign, IL: Research Press.
13.
Kaiser, A.P., Yoder, P.J., & Keetz, A. (1992). Evaluating milieu teaching. In S. F. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.), Causes and effects in communication and language intervention (pp. 9—47). Baltimore: Brookes.
14.
Koegel, R.L., Koegel, L.K., & Surratt, A. (1992). Language intervention and disruptive behavior in preschool children with autism. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 22, 141—153.
15.
Koegel, R.L., O'Dell, M.C., & Koegel, L.K. (1987). A natural language teaching paradigm for nonverbal autistic children. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders , 17(2), 187—200.
16.
Leonard, L.B. (1998). Specific language impairment in children. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press .
17.
Lovaas, O.I. (1987). Behavioral treatment and normal educational and intellectual functioning in young autistic children. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 55, 3—9.
18.
Lovaas, O.I. (1996). The UCLA young autism model of service delivery . In C. Maurice & G. Green (Eds.), Behavioral intervention for young children with autism: A manual for parents and professionals (pp. 241—248). Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
19.
McEachin, J.J., Smith, T., & Lovaas, O.I. (1993). Long-term outcome for children with autism who received early intensive behavioral treatment. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 97, 359—372.
20.
Miller, J. (1981). Assessing language production in children. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
Nelson, K.E. (1989). Strategies for first language teaching. In M. Rice & R. Schiefelbusch (Eds.), The teachability of language (pp. 263—310). Baltimore: Brookes.
23.
Nelson, K.E., Camarata, S., Welsh, J., Butkovsky, L., & Camarata, M. (1996). Acquisition of absent syntactic structures by children with specific language impairment and by nondelayed children matched on language levels. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research , 39, 850—859.
24.
Nelson, K.E., Welsh, J., Camarata, S., Butkovsky, L., & Camarata, M. (1995). Available input for language-impaired children and younger children of matched language levels. First Language , 15, 1—17.
25.
Newcomer, P., & Hammill, D. (1988). Test of language development—2: Primary . Austin, TX: PRO-ED
26.
Olswang, L., Bain, B., & Johnson, G. (1992). Using dynamic assessment with children with language disorders. In S. Warren & J. Reichle (Eds.), Causes and effects in communication and language intervention (pp. 187—216). Baltimore: Brookes.
27.
Snow, D., Swisher, L., McNamara, M., & Kiernan, B. (1996). A response to Camarata. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 39, 221.
28.
Stark, R., & Tallal, P. (1981). Selection of children with specific language deficits . Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 114—123.
29.
Yoder, P.J., Kaiser, A.P., & Alpert, C.L. (1991). An exploratory study of the interaction between language teaching methods and child characteristics. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34, 155—167.
