Sweat, L. M. (2003). Masters Abstracts International, 42(01), 31-231.
Reviewed: June 2012
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.
Please see the WWC summary of evidence for Phonological Awareness Training.
|
Outcome measure |
Comparison | Period | Sample |
Intervention mean |
Comparison mean |
Significant? |
Improvement index |
Evidence tier |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
Final consonant clusters: Regular past tense |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Morphosyntactic intervention |
Posttest |
3 to 5 years old;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Final consonant clusters: Contractible copula |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Morphosyntactic intervention |
Posttest |
3 to 5 years old;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- | |
|
Percentage added sounds to the final consonant inventory |
Phonological Awareness Training vs. Morphosyntactic intervention |
Posttest |
3 to 5 years old;
|
N/A |
N/A |
No |
-- |
Characteristics of study sample as reported by study author.
The study was conducted in early childhood programs in four elementary schools in the Washoe County School District in Reno, Nevada.
The study included 3- to 5-year-old children with morphosyntax and phonological impairments. To be eligible, the children had to meet the following criteria: (a) speech performance at least one standard deviation below the mean on the Bankson- Bernthal Test of Phonology; (b) expressive language scores at least one standard deviation below the mean on the Preschool Language Scale 3 or the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals– Preschool, or a score for mean length of utterances in morphemes greater than one and one-half standard deviations below the mean; (c) nonverbal cognitive functioning within one and one-half standard deviations from the mean on the Columbia Mental Maturity Scale; (d) normal functioning on oral motor assessment; and (e) normal functioning on neurological, behavioral, hearing, and motor skills. Twenty children (18 boys and two girls) were randomly assigned to either phonological awareness training or a morphosyntactic intervention.
Children in the intervention group received phonological awareness training in weekly 30-minute group individual and 45-minute group sessions with clinicians over a 12-week period. Children were given four goals based on their initial speech and language results (e.g., phonetic inventory, sound classes affected). The goals were rotated and targeted three times over the 12-week period. The intervention included auditory awareness activities (such as listening to word lists and books that frequently used a targeted sound), conceptual activities (contrasting and classifying sounds), production practice (drills and imitation of phonetic placement), and phonological awareness activities (rhyme, sound identification). The intervention also included “naturalistic” activities, in which the clinician provided the child with opportunities to produce targeted sounds during conversations. The information in this report examined the children at the end of the 12-week block. As part of a larger study, children were then given the opposite intervention for another 12-week period (i.e., children receiving the phonological awareness training program in the first 12 weeks received the morphosyntactic intervention in the second 12-week period). The information for this additional contrast is not reported in this report, as this would only demonstrate intervention ordering effects. That is, the assessment at the 24-week period would only illustrate the effects of receiving the phonological awareness training first and then the morphosyntactic intervention second, relative to receiving morphosyntactic training first and then phonological awareness training second, and would only illustrate the effectiveness of the ordering of the interventions, not the independent effects of the interventions themselves.
Children in the comparison group received the morphosyntactic intervention over the same 12-week period, with weekly 30-minute individual and 45-minute group sessions with clinicians. As with the intervention condition, children were given four goals, which were rotated and targeted three times during the 12-week period. For the morphosyntactic intervention, the goals were based on morphemes that the child produced with less than 50% accuracy during pretest. However, preference was given to goals that were similar for all children in the group, so the 50% accuracy rule was not always followed. The comparison group program used themes of food, animals, and water. The comparison condition included auditory awareness activities (books and songs with opportunities to produce the target sounds), focused stimulation activities (expansions of the children’s utterances), and elicited production activities (to encourage the use of target morphemes). Clinicians decreased their support over the 12-week period.
Three eligible outcomes of children’s language were used. Two of the measures were based measurement on the final consonant clusters: regular past tense and contractible copula. The third was an inventory of final consonants. For a more detailed description of these outcome measures, see Appendix B.
Both the phonological awareness training and morphosyntactic interventions were led by four graduate student interns and four certified speech-language pathologists. No other information is provided.
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, and statistical significance of the findings within a domain, the WWC characterizes the findings from a study as one of the following: statistically significant positive effects, substantively important positive effects, indeterminate effects, substantively important negative effects, and statistically significant negative effects. For more, 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).
Resources
Newsflash
Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube