Three Treatments for Bilingual Children with Primary Language Impairment: Examining Cross-Linguistic and Cross-Domain Effects
Ebert, Kerry Danahy; Kohnert, Kathryn; Pham, Giang; Disher, Jill Rentmeester; Payesteh, Bita (2014). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, v57 n1 p172-186 Feb 2014. Retrieved from: https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ1029478
-
examining28Students, gradesK-5
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for English language intervention – Ebert et al. (2014))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised cluster randomized controlled trial, but it satisfies the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Nonword repetition (NWR) in Spanish |
English language intervention – Ebert et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.50 |
-1.00 |
No |
-- | ||
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test (EOWPVT-III) |
English language intervention – Ebert et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
7.11 |
4.11 |
No |
-- |
|
Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test |
English language intervention – Ebert et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
1.97 |
-0.02 |
No |
-- |
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
100% English language learners -
Female: 15%
Male: 85% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Minnesota
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place during after school or summer programming in 8 schools in the Minneapolis Public School District.
Study sample
The study sample included bilingual students who spoke Spanish and English and were receiving special education services for a language disorder. To be eligible for participation, students must (1) have scored below expectations in both English and Spanish on at least two assessments and (2) not have any other diagnosis to explain the language impairment. To compare the intervention and comparison conditions described below, the study analyzed results for 28 students: 17 children in the intervention condition and 11 children in the comparison condition. Across all students in the study, students were between 5 and 11 years old at the time of study enrollment.
Intervention Group
An English language skills intervention was designed to strengthen children’s English language skills, including vocabulary, grammar, and listening comprehension. The intervention used computer games published by Laureate Learning Systems and by Earobics and interactive hands-on activities that involved English words, sentences, descriptions, and directions. Children completed activities that asked them to choose correct verb forms, identify items based on descriptions, follow increasingly complex directions, name categories, produce English grammar forms, and use descriptive vocabulary. Speech-language pathologists delivered the intervention in small groups and interacted with students in English during the activities. There were typically four 75-minute sessions per week for 6 weeks held after school or during summer programming. In addition to the intervention, all students continued to receive business-as-usual school-based language services for 30 to 60 minutes each week.
Comparison Group
The students in the comparison group received business-as-usual school-based language services for 30 to 60 minutes each week. The comparison group could receive the intervention after the study ended.
Support for implementation
Master’s level speech-language pathologists delivered the intervention. The speech-language pathologists received training on the intervention protocol and had access to training manuals throughout the intervention. The study team also reviewed video recordings of some sessions to monitor whether students received the planned activities.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Pham, Giang; Ebert, Kerry Danahy; Kohnert, Kathryn. (2015). Bilingual Children with Primary Language Impairment: 3 Months after Treatment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, v50 n1 p94-105.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Nonlinguistic cognitive processing – Ebert et al. (2014))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- Meets WWC standards with reservations because it is a compromised cluster randomized controlled trial, but it satisfies the baseline equivalence requirement for the individuals in the analytic intervention and comparison groups.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Nonword repetition (NWR) in English |
Nonlinguistic cognitive processing – Ebert et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
0.10 |
-1.80 |
No |
-- |
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Show Supplemental Findings | |||||||||
|
Nonword repetition (NWR) in Spanish |
Nonlinguistic cognitive processing – Ebert et al. (2014) vs. Business as usual |
0 Days |
Full sample;
|
9.10 |
-1.00 |
No |
-- | ||
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
-
100% English language learners -
Female: 15%
Male: 85% -
Urban
-
- B
- A
- C
- D
- E
- F
- G
- I
- H
- J
- K
- L
- P
- M
- N
- O
- Q
- R
- S
- V
- U
- T
- W
- X
- Z
- Y
- a
- h
- i
- b
- d
- e
- f
- c
- g
- j
- k
- l
- m
- n
- o
- p
- q
- r
- s
- t
- u
- v
- x
- w
- y
Minnesota
-
Race Other or unknown 100% -
Ethnicity Other or unknown 100% -
Eligible for Free and Reduced Price Lunch Other or unknown 100%
Study Details
Setting
This study took place during after school or summer programming in 8 schools in the Minneapolis Public School District.
Study sample
The study included bilingual students who spoke Spanish and English and were receiving special education services for a language disorder. To be eligible for participation, students must (1) have scored below expectations in both English and Spanish on at least two assessments and (2) not have any other diagnosis to explain the language impairment. The authors randomly assigned 59 students to one of three interventions or the comparison. To compare the intervention and comparison conditions described below, the study analyzed results for 27 children: 16 children in the intervention condition and 11 children in the comparison condition. Across all students in the study, students were between 5 and 11 years old at the time of study enrollment.
Intervention Group
The nonlinguistic cognitive processing intervention was designed to strengthen children’s attention and processing speed without directly teaching language skills. The intervention used computer games from the Locutour Multimedia Attention and Memory: Volume II software package and interactive hands-on activities that involved visual and sound-based materials such as shapes, colors, tones, or noises. Children completed activities that asked them to respond quickly, find target symbols, follow sound-based commands, and repeat sequences of tones or lights. Speech-language pathologists delivered the intervention in small groups and were encouraged to speak naturally and in English with students as they completed treatment activities but to avoid prompts or corrections to teach language. There were typically four 75-minute sessions per week for six weeks held after school or summer school. In addition to the intervention, all students continued to receive business-as-usual school-based language services for 30 to 60 minutes each week.
Comparison Group
The students in the comparison group received business-as-usual school-based language services delivered in English for 30 to 60 minutes each week. The comparison group could receive the intervention after the study ended.
Support for implementation
All speech-language pathologists who delivered the interventions had master’s degrees, national certification, and experience working with children from diverse language backgrounds. The speech-language pathologists received training on the intervention protocol and had access to training manuals created by the study team throughout the intervention. The study team also reviewed video recordings of some sessions to monitor whether students received the planned activities and whether providers avoided language teaching during the nonlinguistic cognitive processing intervention.
Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Pham, Giang; Ebert, Kerry Danahy; Kohnert, Kathryn. (2015). Bilingual Children with Primary Language Impairment: 3 Months after Treatment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, v50 n1 p94-105.
Single Study Review
Review Details
Reviewed: May 2026
- Single Study Review (findings for Spanish-English bilingual treatment – Ebert et al. (2014))
- Randomized Controlled Trial
- The study does not meet WWC group design standards because the equivalence of the clusters in the analytic intervention and comparison groups is necessary but the requirement was not satisfied.
This review may not reflect the full body of research evidence for this intervention.
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Findings
Evidence Tier rating based solely on this study. This intervention may achieve a higher tier when combined with the full body of evidence.
Sample Characteristics
Study sample characteristics were not reported.Additional Sources
In the case of multiple manuscripts that report on one study, the WWC selects one manuscript as the primary citation and lists other manuscripts that describe the study as additional sources.
-
Pham, Giang; Ebert, Kerry Danahy; Kohnert, Kathryn. (2015). Bilingual Children with Primary Language Impairment: 3 Months after Treatment. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, v50 n1 p94-105.
An indicator of the effect of the intervention, the improvement index can be interpreted as the expected change in percentile rank for an average comparison group student if that student had received the intervention.
For more, please see the WWC Glossary entry for improvement index.
An outcome is the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that are attained as a result of an activity. An outcome measures is an instrument, device, or method that provides data on the outcome.
A finding that is included in the effectiveness rating. Excluded findings may include subgroups and subscales.
The sample on which the analysis was conducted.
The group to which the intervention group is compared, which may include a different intervention, business as usual, or no services.
The timing of the post-intervention outcome measure.
The number of students included in the analysis.
The mean score of students in the intervention group.
The mean score of students in the comparison group.
The WWC considers a finding to be statistically significant if the likelihood that the finding is due to chance alone, rather than a real difference, is less than five percent.
The WWC reviews studies for WWC products, Department of Education grant competitions, and IES performance measures.
The name and version of the document used to guide the review of the study.
The version of the WWC design standards used to guide the review of the study.
The result of the WWC assessment of the study. The rating is based on the strength of evidence of the effectiveness of the intervention. Studies are given a rating of Meets WWC Design Standards without Reservations, Meets WWC Design Standards with Reservations, or >Does Not Meet WWC Design Standards.
A related publication that was reviewed alongside the main study of interest.
Study findings for this report.
Based on the direction, magnitude, statistical significance, and sample size of the findings within a domain, the WWC assigns effectiveness ratings as one of the following: Tier 1 (strong evidence), Tier 2 (moderate evidence), Tier 3 (promising evidence), uncertain effects, and negative effects. For more detail, please see the WWC Handbook.
The WWC may review studies for multiple purposes, including different reports and re-reviews using updated standards. Each WWC review of this study is listed in the dropdown. Details on any review may be accessed by making a selection from the drop down list.
Tier 1 Strong indicates strong evidence of effectiveness,
Tier 2 Moderate indicates moderate evidence of effectiveness, and
Tier 3 Promising indicates promising evidence of effectiveness,
as defined in the
non-regulatory guidance for ESSA
and the regulations for ED discretionary grants (EDGAR Part 77).