JCPSLP Vol 21 No 1 2019

Continued

Table 1. Search results

Publication

Key details

Setting

Various clinical contexts

Law, Garrett, & Nye (2005) synthesised 25 studies and found oral language interventions to be effective for children and adolescents with expressive phonological and vocabulary difficulties, with no difference in the outcomes of individual and group treatments.

Age 1–15 years Study design Systematic review Targets

Expressive and receptive phonology, semantics and syntax Limitations The majority of the research was not conducted in

learning contexts, e.g., schools; lack of follow-up to measure whether benefits were sustained

Setting

Secondary school

Lowe & Joffe (2017) found a phonological-semantic approach (focusing on the sounds in the words as well as the meaning of the words) to teaching classroom-based vocabulary was effective for students with DLD.

Age 13–14 years Study design Pre-test/post-test with post-test follow up Targets Vocabulary Limitations Small sample; only one teacher

Setting

Specialist schools special education class; mainstream secondary school; specialist child care setting

Lowe, Henry, Müller, & Joffe (2018) in their systematic review concluded oral language interventions (particularly phonological-semantic approaches to expressive vocabulary intervention) can be effective with adolescents, at individual, group or whole class levels.

Age 11–16 years Study design Systematic review Targets

Receptive and expressive vocabulary Limitations Lack of consistency across study designs; various pre–post measures used

Setting

Secondary school

Murphy et al. (2017) found adolescents with vocabulary difficulties showed small but significant gains in receptive and expressive oral vocabulary through the implementation of a whole-class teacher-led approach, with the support of a speech-language pathologist.

Age 11–13 years Study Design Pre-test/post-test Targets

Semantics; phonological awareness; morphology Limitations Incomplete post-testing; possible practice effects on assessment

Setting

Juvenile justice detention centre

Snow & Woodward (2016) found young people with language disorders in custody made gains through 1:1 speech-language pathology interventions despite the practical challenges in delivering intervention within a youth justice setting.

Age 16–19 years Study Design Convenience sample case series Targets

Individually tailored speech-language pathology interventions Non-random sample; small sample size; no comparison intervention; no long-term follow-up

Limitations

Setting

Secondary school

Spencer, Clegg, Lowe, & Stackhouse (2017) found adolescents’ knowledge of cross-curriculum based vocabulary could be improved via a 10-week intervention program, with gains noted on word knowledge assessment.

Age 12–14 years Study Design Pre-test/post-test with a repeated baseline, delayed intervention cohort and blind assessment Targets Cross-curriculum vocabulary Limitations Small scale evaluation; conducted in one school

Setting

Secondary school Year 8 students

Starling, Munro, Togher, & Arciuli (2012) measured the effects of training secondary school teachers in implementing language modification techniques in the classroom and reported improved listening comprehension and written expression for adolescents with oral language difficulties.

Age

Study Design RCT Targets

Teacher training in language modification; listening comprehension; written expression

Limitations Small scale

Setting

Residential juvenile correctional facilities

Wexler, Pyle, Flower, Williams & Cole (2014) synthesised 16 studies conducted between 1970 and 2012. They found that a range of explicit and targeted oral language and academic interventions can be effective with adolescents who are incarcerated. The challenge was not in finding effective interventions, but rather in finding ways for the interventions to be effective in youth justice settings given the many competing interests and systemic challenges.

Age/grade Grade 3–12 Study design Meta-analysis Targets

Language; literacy (reading and writing)

Limitations

Lack of random assignment to treatment and control groups in some studies; variable study design standards; compromised participation rates given the challenges of conducting research in justice settings

31

JCPSLP Volume 21, Number 1 2019

www.speechpathologyaustralia.org.au