A computer-assisted language intervention, Fast For Word-Language (FFW–L), was tested at a rural Nevada center in a group of children (Grades 2–12) referred by parents and teachers to assess enhancement of language skills. Given conflicting results from previous studies, language scores were measured using Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Third Edition (CELF–3) before and after the FFW–L intervention. 58 children's CELF–3 postintervention scores were adjusted for age-specific expected changes and compared with pretest scores. Adjusted scores increased in both receptive and expressive domains of the CELF–3. Children with prior diagnoses of language and/or learning impairment did not differ from other referrals on adjusted CELF–3 adjusted gain scores after treatment. Thus the Fast ForWord–Language intervention may benefit a much broader group of children referred by parents and teachers for language or reading problems.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BeattieK. K. (2000) The effects of intensive computer-based language intervention on language functioning and reading achievement in language-impaired adolescents. Dissertation Abstract, 1–2.
2.
BentumK. E.AaronP. G. (2003) Does reading instruction in learning disabilities resource rooms really work? A longitudinal study. Reading Psychology, 24, 361–382.
3.
CampbellD. T.StanleyJ. C. (1963) Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Dallas, TX: Houghton Mifflin.
4.
CohenJ.HodsonA.HareA.BoyleJ.DurraniT.McCartneyE.MatteyM.Nafta-LinL.WatsonJ. (2005) Effects of a computer-based intervention through acoustically modified speech (Fast ForWord) in severe mixed receptive-expressive language impairment: from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48, 715–729.
5.
CunninghamP. M. (2003) What research says about teaching for phonics. In MorrowL. M.GambrellL. B.PressleyM. (Eds.), Best practices in literacy instruction. New York: Guilford.
6.
EhriL. C.NunesL. (2002) The role of phonemic awareness in learning to read. Newark, NJ: International Reading Assn.
7.
Friel-PattiS.DesBarresK.ThibodeauL. (2001) Case studies of children using Fast ForWord. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 203–216.
8.
GillamR. B.CroffordJ. A.GaleM. A.HoffmanL. M. (2001) Language change following computer-assisted language instruction with Fast ForWord or Laureate Learning Systems software. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 231–247.
9.
GillamR. B.LoebD. F.HoffmanL. M.BohmanT.ChamplinC. A.ThibodeauL.WidenJ.BrandelJ.Friel-PattiS. (2008) The efficacy of Fast ForWord–Language intervention in school-age children with language impairment: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 97–119.
10.
HabibM.ReyV.DaffaureV.CampsR.EspresserR.Joly-PottuzB.DemonetJ. (2002) Phonological training in children with dyslexia using temporally modified speech: a three-step pilot investigation. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 37, 289–308.
11.
HookP. E.MacarusoP.JonesS. (2001) Efficacy of Fast ForWord training on facilitating acquisition of reading skills by children with reading difficulties: a longitudinal study. Annals of Dyslexia, 51, 75–96.
12.
KuehlR. O. (2000) Design of experiments: statistical principles of research design and analysis. (2nd ed.) Pacific Grove, CA: Duxbury Thomson Learning.
13.
LightR. J.PillemerD. B. (1984) Summing up: the science of reviewing research. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univer. Press.
14.
LoebD.StokeC.FeyM. E. (2001) Language changes associated with Fast ForWord–Language: evidence from case studies. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 10, 216–230.
15.
McAnallyK. I.CastlesA.BannisterS. (2004) Auditory temporal pattern discrimination and reading ability. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47, 1237–1243.
16.
MerzenichM.JenkinsW.JohnstonP.SchreinerS.MillerS.TallalP. (1996) Temporal processing deficits of language-learning impaired children ameliorated by training. Science, 271, 77–81.
17.
MonkD. H. (2007) Recruiting and retaining high-quality teachers in rural areas. The Future of Children—Excellence in the Classroom, 17, 155–174.
18.
ReedM. A. (1989) Speech perception and the discrimination of brief auditory cues in reading disabled children. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 48, 270–292.
19.
RiceM. L. (1997) Evaluating new training programs for language impairment. ASHA, 293, 12–13.
20.
RouseC. E.KruegerA. B. (2004) Putting computerized instruction to the test: a randomized evaluation of a “scientifically-based” reading program. Economics of Education Review, 234, 323–338.
21.
SemelE.WiigE.SecordW. A. (1995) Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals. (3rd ed.) San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corp.
22.
ShaywitzS. E. (2004) Overcoming dyslexia. New York: Alfred A. Knopf.
23.
TallalP. (2004) Improving language and literacy is a matter of time. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 721–728.
24.
TallalP.MerzenichM.MillerS.JenkinsW. (1998) Language learning impairment: integrating research and remediation. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 39, 197–199.
25.
TallalP.MillerS.BediG.BymaG.WangX.NagarajanS. S.SchreinerC.JenkinsW.MerzenichM. (1996) Language comprehension in language-learning impaired children improved with acoustically modified speech. Science, 271, 81–84.
26.
TempleE.DeutschG. K.PoldrackR. A.MillerS. L.TallalP.MerzenichM. M. (2003) Neural deficits in children with dyslexia ameliorated by behavioral remediation: evidence from functional MRLProceedings of the National Academy of Science, 1005, 2860–2865.
27.
TroiaG. A. (2004) Migrant students with limited English proficiency: can Fast ForWord–Language make a difference in their language skills and academic achievement?Remedial and Special Education, 256, 353–366.
28.
ValentineD.HedrickM. S.SwansonL. A. (2006) Effect of an auditory training program on reading, phoneme awareness, and language. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 103, 183–196.
