PurposeWe asked whether children with developmental language disorder can learn vocabulary or grammar targets and curricular content simultaneously. We replicated prior work integrating two language interventions into a first-grade science curriculum and extended it by testing delivery via teletherapy.MethodA parallel arm randomised controlled trial was conducted using telehealth approaches. Children aged 4-7years with developmental language disorder were randomly assigned to one of three arms, science-only (n = 13), science plus grammar (n = 11), and science plus vocabulary (n = 10), with fidelity documented for both science and language instruction. The primary outcome measures were changes in the taught language targets and science content, with secondary outcome measures including distal measures of language and science.ResultComplete data for 32 participants were analysed with mixed effects regression. All arms improved on science and grammar targets, with gains in the vocabulary arm exceeding those in the control arm. There were no gains on the distal measures.ConclusionSimilar to the findings in the replicated study, children with developmental language disorder can learn language targets in the context of curricular instruction. Enhanced rich vocabulary instruction holds promise as an approach that can be embedded in the curriculum and produces gains both in person and via telehealth method of instruction.

Purpose: This study reports on a program to train student clinicians to provide recast therapy on complement clauses to children with developmental language disorder (DLD). To determine the efficacy of the program, we conducted secondary data analysis based on Owen Van Horne et al. (2023) and examined student clinicians' recasts after training and children's progress after treatment. Method: Three student clinicians received a two-stage training, followed by a real intervention program targeting complement clauses in six children with DLD. A third of the intervention sessions were coded for the total number and number of unique verbs in complement clauses provided by the student clinicians. An elicited production task was completed to test children's knowledge of the target structure. Results: On average, student clinicians provided 30 targeted recasts to each child during each intervention session. They provided a greater number of and more variable input for that compared to WH complements. Children demonstrated significant improvement only in WH, but not in that, complements. Conclusions: A targeted training program could strengthen clinicians' ability to provide recast therapy on complex syntax; however, future refinements should shorten and broaden training to include more targets. A mismatch between input patterns and learning patterns was observed. WH complement input is more stable than that input, given the less variable complement-taking verbs provided by the student clinicians and the overtness of the WH word as a stable complementizer, which may have facilitated the identification and extraction of the target syntactic structure.

Purpose: Children with developmental language disorder frequently have difficulty with both academic success and language learning and use. This clinical focus article describes core principles derived from a larger program of research (National Science Foundation 1748298) on language intervention combined with science instruction for preschoolers. It serves as an illustration of a model for integrating language intervention with curricular content delivery. Method: We present a five-step model for a speech-language pathologist and other school professionals to follow to (a) understand the grade-level core curriculum objectives; (b) align intervention targets with the curriculum; (c) select a therapy approach that aligns with both goals and curricular content, and (d) methods for implementing the intervention; and (e) verify that both the intervention and the curriculum have been provided in accordance with best practices. We apply this model to the Next Generation Science Standards, a science curriculum popular in the United States, and to grammar and vocabulary interventions, two areas of difficulty for children with developmental language disorders, though it would be possible to extend the steps to other curricular areas and intervention targets. Conclusions: We conclude by discussing the barriers and benefits to adopting this model. We recognize that both speech-language pathologists and teachers may have limited time to implement language intervention within a general education curriculum, but we suggest that the long-term benefits outweigh the barriers. © 2024 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

Background: The language of the science curriculum is complex, even in the early grades. To communicate their scientific observations, children must produce complex syntax, particularly complement clauses (e.g., I think it will float; We noticed that it vibrates). Complex syntax is often challenging for children with developmental language disorder (DLD), and thus their learning and communication of science may be compromised. Aims: We asked whether recast therapy delivered in the context of a science curriculum led to gains in complement clause use and scientific content knowledge. To understand the efficacy of recast therapy, we compared changes in science and language knowledge in children who received treatment for complement clauses embedded in a first-grade science curriculum to two active control conditions (vocabulary + science, phonological awareness + science). Methods & Procedures: This 2-year single-site three-arm parallel randomized controlled trial was conducted in Delaware, USA. Children with DLD, not yet in first grade and with low accuracy on complement clauses, were eligible. Thirty-three 4–7-year-old children participated in the summers of 2018 and 2019 (2020 was cancelled due to COVID-19). We assigned participants to arms using 1:1:1 pseudo-random allocation (avoiding placing siblings together). The intervention consisted of 39 small-group sessions of recast therapy, robust vocabulary instruction or phonological awareness intervention during eight science units over 4 weeks, followed by two science units (1 week) taught without language intervention. Pre-/post-measures were collected 3 weeks before and after camp by unmasked assessors. Outcomes & Results: Primary outcome measures were accuracy on a 20-item probe of complement clause production and performance on ten 10-item unit tests (eight science + language, two science only). Complete data were available for 31 children (10 grammar, 21 active control); two others were lost to follow-up. Both groups made similar gains on science unit tests for science + language content (pre versus post, d = 2.9, p < 0.0001; group, p = 0.24). The grammar group performed significantly better at post-test than the active control group (d = 2.5, p = 0.049) on complement clause probes and marginally better on science-only unit tests (d = 2.5, p = 0.051). Conclusions & Implications: Children with DLD can benefit from language intervention embedded in curricular content and learn both language and science targets taught simultaneously. Tentative findings suggest that treatment for grammar targets may improve academic outcomes. What this paper adds: What is already known on the subject We know that recast therapy focused on morphology is effective but very time consuming. Treatment for complex syntax in young children has preliminary efficacy data available. Prior research provides mixed evidence as to children’s ability to learn language targets in conjunction with other information. What this study adds This study provides additional data supporting the efficacy of intensive complex syntax recast therapy for children ages 4–7 with Developmental Language Disorder. It also provides data that children can learn language targets and science curricular content simultaneously. What are the clinical implications of this work? As SLPs, we have to talk about something to deliver language therapy; we should consider talking about curricular content. Recast therapy focused on syntactic frames is effective with young children. © 2023 Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists.

Introduction: This research examined the classification accuracy of the Quick Interactive Language Screener (QUILS) for identifying preschool-aged children (3;0 to 6;9) with developmental lan-guage disorder (DLD). We present data from two independent samples that varied in prevalence and diagnostic reference standard.Methods: Study 1 included a clinical sample of children (54 with DLD; 13 without) who completed the QUILS and a standardized assessment of expressive grammar (Syntax subtest from the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Norm Referenced; Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test-Preschool 2nd Edition; or Structured Photographic Expressive Lan-guage Test-3 rd Edition). Study 2 included a community sample of children (25 with DLD; 101 without) who completed the QUILS and the Auditory Comprehension subtest of the Preschool Language Scales-5th Edition (PLS-5; Zimmerman et al., 2011). Discriminant analyses were con-ducted to compare classification accuracy (i.e., sensitivity and specificity) using the normrefer-enced cut score (< 25th percentile) with empirically derived cut scores. Results: In Study 1, the QUILS led to low fail rates (i.e., high specificity) in children without impairment and statistically significant group differences as a function of children's clinical status; however, only 65% of children with DLD were accurately identified using the norm -referenced cutoff. In Study 2, 76% of children with DLD were accurately identified at the 25th percentile cutoff and accuracy improved to 84% when an empirically derived cutoff (<32nd percentile) was applied.Conclusions: Findings support the clinical application of the QUILS as a component of the screening process for identifying the presence or absence of DLD in community samples of preschool-aged children.

Purpose: The aims of the study were to explore responses of children with developmental language disorder (DLD) to rich vocabulary instruction and to identify potential factors that contribute to outcomes. Method: Children with DLD participated in a language intervention embedded within a science camp. Using parent and clinician reports, standardized tests, probes, notes, and video, we derived descriptions of seven of the campers who received a vocabulary intervention that incorporated principles of rich instruction. We present them here as a case series. Results: Five cases responded to the intervention with modest gains in Tier 2 science vocabulary and science knowledge. One case demonstrated no response, and another was unable to complete the intervention. The latter two cases presented with triple risks: DLD, executive function deficits, and stressors associated with poverty. In comparison, the best responder also lived in poverty strengths in extant vocabulary, stronger knowledge of science, better engagement in the science and language intervention activities, and was older. Other factors that seemed to contribute to outcomes included the complexity of the word forms and dosage. Conclusions: Translating research on rich instruction to clinical practice is challenging. This case series motivated hypotheses about the nature of the challenge and what to do about it, the primary one being that the modest success of rich vocabulary instruction for children with DLD is not a limitation of the approach itself but rather a reflection of the difficulty of delivering the intervention while tailoring the targets, approach, and dosage to the needs of individual children with DLD.

Purpose: Elementary school students are expected to participate in science learning settings that place high demands on skill with certain types of grammatical structures, including complex sentences. This research note aims to clarify the types of complex sentences that are evident in a general education science curriculum across the elementary school years in order to assist clinicians and others in better understanding the specific language demands of science learning in the classroom. Method: I analyzed all sentences within children's texts and suggested teacher scripting from the first-, third-, and fifth-grade science units of a commonly used general education curriculum aligned to the Next Generation Science Standards. We determined the frequency and type of complex sentences that were present for each type of material (text, teacher scripts) and grade level. Results: Complex sentences are evident in both children's texts and suggested scripting provided to teachers at all grade levels. The rate of complex sentences in children's readings is higher in third- and fifth-grade texts than in first-grade texts. Complement clauses are common throughout, and adverbial and relative clauses are more frequent in third- and fifth-grade texts than in first-grade texts. Conclusions: Children are expected to read and listen to complex sentences across the elementary school years. Speech-language pathologists should be aware of the language demands that general education science curricula may pose to students at different ages.