Search

Background: Early language delay is exacerbated by social disadvantage. Factors such as parents' low levels of literacy, confidence and self‐perception can affect the capacity to act on advice received, critical to empowerment. Methods used to achieve successful health outcomes in socially disadvantaged clinical populations may need enhancing. Aims: To compare the impact of standard parent‐based intervention (PBI) to enhanced PBI for young children with speech, language and communication needs (SCLN) and their families living in more socially disadvantaged populations. Methods and Procedures: A multicentre clustered blind randomised controlled trial was used to compare the effect of parent‐based group interventions to improve early language development with children (mean age 27.5 months) from more socially disadvantaged populations with an expressive vocabulary of 40 or less single words. Intervention sessions were delivered by a speech and language therapist, over a 20‐week period. Participants received one of two interventions: (1) Standard Care – indirect group PBI – (PBI) (2) Enhanced Care: indirect group enhanced PBI – (EPBI). Both standardised and non‐standardised measures were used as outcomes. Parent engagement in the intervention was captured through analysis of attendance and the Parent Activation Measure – Speech & Language Therapy (PAM‐SLT) (Insignia Health, 2014). The PAM measures a person's knowledge, skills and confidence to manage their own health and well‐being (NHS England, 2018). In this study, activation referred to parents' knowledge, skills and confidence to manage their child's language development. Outcomes and Results: One hundred fifty‐five participants were randomised at baseline. Children in both groups made significant improvements in the outcome on MacArthur‐Bates Communicative Development Inventories Sentence Length, from pre‐intervention to post‐intervention and 6 months post‐intervention (p < 0.05). Changes in vocabulary and expressive language skills were more equivocal, showing wide variation in confidence intervals for both groups. Where parents attended at least one intervention session almost all effect sizes were in favour of the EPBI intervention. Parents' activation levels significantly increased for both groups (EPBI p < 0.001, PBI p = 0.003), with a moderate effect size in favour of EPBI (Hedges' G 0.37, confidence interval –0.02 to 0.76), although wide variation was found. Conclusions and Implications: This trial provides some evidence of facilitating the language development of children with SLCN from more socially disadvantaged areas through supporting caregivers. However, we found variation in outcomes; some children made excellent progress, whilst others did not. Further exploration of parent engagement and its relationship to child language outcomes will be valuable to understanding more about mechanisms of change in interventions that involve parents. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) have a knock‐on effect on emotional well‐being, school readiness, literacy and school attainment, putting children at increased risk of long‐term consequences such as poor literacy, mental health problems and unemployment. In disadvantaged areas, the prevalence of language difficulties is higher than elsewhere. Factors such as parents' low levels of literacy, confidence and self‐perception can affect the capacity to act on advice received, critical to empowerment. What this paper adds to existing knowledge: Children with SLCN from more socially disadvantaged areas can make improvements in their language development through parent intervention, although wide individual variation was found. There was some evidence that children achieve better outcomes with EPBI, which employed an interagency collaborative approach. Parent's engagement (activation levels) increased significantly over time with intervention, with the increase twice as big for EPBI. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This trial provides some evidence that it is possible to facilitate the language development of children from more socially disadvantaged areas through supporting their caregivers. Further research would be useful to determine whether increases in parent engagement are related to adherence to intervention and change in child outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: When parents bring their child to appointments and then adhere to agreed speech and language therapy (SLT) recommendations, there is the potential to increase the intensity of the intervention, support generalization and improve outcomes. In SLT, however, little is known about factors that may promote attendance or adherence. Studies in other clinical areas such in medicine, psychology and physiotherapy have identified risk factors for non‐attendance or non‐adherence that are multifactorial and variable dependent on, for example, population and intervention. Aims: To identify rates of non‐attendance and non‐adherence, and to identify parent or child factors associated with parent involvement in intervention for children under 5 years of age receiving SLT. Methods: Parents completed questionnaires at two time points assessing the domains of parents' beliefs (problem perceptions, self‐efficacy), personal circumstances (socio‐demographics, family functioning), treatment experience and child factors. Predictors of parent attendance and adherence were identified through multiple regression analyses. Non‐attendance rates were identified via local health records and non‐adherence ascertained using a specific parent‐reported measure within the treatment experience domain. Results: Participants (N = 199) were predominantly mothers, and were ethnically and socio‐economically diverse, speaking a wide range of languages. Their children presented with a range of speech, language communication needs (SLCN). The rate of non‐attendance was 25% and the main predictors of non‐attendance were maternal age, education level and two factors within the parent beliefs domain. This model explained 40% of the variance in attendance. The rate of non‐adherence in this cohort was 26% with parental rating of the importance of a recommendation and self‐efficacy beliefs predicting adherence; this explained 56% of the variance in adherence to SLT recommendations at home. Conclusions & Implications: Our research has provided preliminary evidence of the influence of parents' beliefs, personal circumstances and treatment experiences on their involvement in their child's therapy. Speech and language therapists should consider factors impacting attendance and adherence to treatment and explore parental perceptions of their child's SLCN before embarking on an intervention, a foundation for collaborative practice. A possible limitation of this study is that the levels of attrition in our sample led to generally high measured rates of participation, which should be considered in future studies. Future research should explore adherence in treatments with varying doses, with different types of SLCN or interventions and in different settings. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: It is acknowledged that parent involvement in their child's therapy, such as attending and adhering to recommendations, is important but little is known about the rates of involvement and what factors may be associated with attendance and adherence in SLT. Qualitative research has explored parental involvement suggesting that beliefs about an intervention may be pertinent. Extensive research in other clinical areas suggest multiple and varied factors are influential and further exploration of particular populations and interventions is necessary. What this paper adds to the existing knowledge: This study identified rates of parental non‐attendance and non‐adherence in a cohort of predominantly mothers of children under the age of 5 years. It is the first study to measure parent adherence in SLT and identify factors that are associated parental adherence to SLT recommendations. It adds to the small body of SLT specific research in understanding risk factors for non‐attendance. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: This study highlights the need for a speech and language therapist to consider and explore parents' perspectives of their child's SLCN as a part of achieving collaboration with a parent in order to achieve the best outcomes. It provides a foundation for further systematic research into parent involvement with the ultimate aim of enhancing outcomes for children with SLCN. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) impacts various aspects of children's language abilities, including the processing of inflectional morphology. Prior research suggests that children with DLD exhibit deficits in processing speed and sensitivity to grammatical inflections, yet the relationship between these deficits remains unclear. Aims: This study aimed to investigate the relationship between processing speed and sensitivity to inflectional morphology in children with DLD, focusing on their real‐time processing abilities in response to regular past tense, third person singular, and regular plural inflections at different rates of sentence articulation. Method: Eighteen children with DLD and 18 age‐matched controls underwent word monitoring tasks that assessed sensitivity to grammaticality of inflections in sentences presented at normal and slow rates of articulation. Results: At a normal rate of articulation, children with DLD demonstrated slower response times and reduced sensitivity to grammaticality across all inflections compared to controls. When the articulation rate was slowed, children with DLD showed improved sensitivity, particularly to regular plural and third person singular inflections, although deficits in processing the regular past tense persisted. Conclusions: The findings suggest a significant relationship between processing speed and inflectional morphology sensitivity in children with DLD. Slower articulation rates improved grammatical sensitivity for certain inflections, highlighting the potential of tailored interventions that consider processing speed limitations. Persistent difficulties with the regular past tense inflection indicate the need for targeted support for children with DLD in this area. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject: Children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) have a wide range of language difficulties, but deficits in inflectional morphology are regarded as a 'hallmark' of the disorder. Children with DLD are also very likely to show deficits in speed of processing, although it is not known if a 'slowness to process' can causally explain the language difficulties these children experience. What this study adds to existing knowledge: When grammatical sensitivity was measured using an online real‐time task, children with DLD showed widespread inflectional deficits when sentences were spoken at a normal conversational rate. When sentence articulation rate was slowed down, children with DLD were faster, more accurate and more sensitive to the grammaticality of constructions. However, deficits in the regular past tense remained persistent, even in this slow‐rate condition. What are the clinical implications of this work?: This study has implications for clinical and educational practices that work with children with DLD to improve their language skills. The findings of this study show that when children with DLD are given more time to process incoming information, their grammatical skills significantly improve. This study also shows that deficits in the regular past tense are persistent, and children are likely need extensive and intensive support with this particular grammatical feature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Parent–child interaction therapies are commonly used by speech and language therapists (SLTs) when providing services to young children with language learning difficulties. However, the way parents react to the demands of such interventions is clearly important, especially for those from socially disadvantaged backgrounds. Parents play a central role in the therapy process so to ensure parent engagement, and to maximize intervention effectiveness, parents' views must be considered. Aims: To explore the expectations and experiences of parents from socially disadvantaged backgrounds who had taken part in a parent–child interaction programme aimed at promoting language development in 2–3 year olds with language difficulties. Methods & Procedures: The sample included parents who had a child aged 2–3 years and had attended a parent–child interaction programme to promote their child's language development. Parents were eligible to take part if they were living in the 30% most deprived areas in a city in the North of England that constituted the study site. Ten parents participated in a qualitative semi‐structured face‐to‐face interview in the home. Framework analysis was used to analyse the interview transcripts. Outcomes & Results: Parents' expectations before taking part in parent–child interaction interventions contribute to how they may engage throughout the intervention process. Barriers include parents' uncertainty about the nature of the intervention and differing attitudes regarding intervention approaches and strategies. Facilitators during the intervention process include gaining support from other parents, reassurance from the SLT regarding their child's language development, and their own ability to support their child's language learning, as well as increased confidence in how they support their child's development. Conclusions & Implications: Parents respond very differently to parent–child interaction intervention for children with language difficulties, depending on their expectations and attitudes towards intervention. Thus, it is critical that these different perspectives are understood by practitioners before intervention commences to ensure successful engagement. What this paper addsWhat is already known on this subjectParent–child interaction interventions are widely used to promote child language development. Parents play a central role in the therapy process of such interventions, so to maximize effectiveness, parents must be appropriately 'engaged' in that intervention. This involves attending, fully participating and having appropriate attitudinal and/or emotional involvement. The reciprocal nature of engagement means that parents are more likely to become engaged in intervention over time when they are supported by their SLT.What this paper adds to existing knowledgeParental expectations about the intervention process vary considerably and often need to be negotiated before the start of intervention. Reassurance and supporting positive attitudes to co‐working with their SLT may be particularly important for families living with social disadvantage. Supporting parent engagement in parent–child interaction programmes can contribute to the parents' capability to continue implementing language‐promoting strategies outside the intervention context and beyond the end of therapy.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?Parents have different expectations regarding programme involvement. Therefore, having a two‐way, open dialogue between parents and SLTs from the beginning is clearly important, not only as a way of sharing information but also to build on parents' understanding of what the intervention will involve and trust that the SLT will be able to deliver the intervention in collaboration with the parent. SLTs can enhance parent engagement by supporting parents to feel confident and providing reassurance in terms of their child's development and how they can support their child's language learning. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Many people with aphasia have word‐finding difficulties, with some showing particular difficulties with verbs. Picture‐naming therapy is often used to improve naming, but gains are usually limited to therapy items and do not transfer to conversation. Therapy where words are produced in sentences and in real‐life activities may be more effective. Aims: The current pilot study investigated whether an activity‐oriented therapy approach would be accepted and viable if implemented in a community setting, and whether communicating whilst cooking was more beneficial than using paper‐based activities. If successful, it would be expected that verb production would improve in structured and unstructured tasks in both naming and narrative tasks. Methods & Procedures: The study employed a case‐series repeated‐measures design, with testing of treated and control items. Seven adults with anomia participated, although only five completed the full programme. Participants were divided into two groups and each group completed both treatments, but in different orders. Each treatment was employed for six 2‐h sessions over a 3‐week period. Outcomes & Results: Naming of both treated and untreated verbs showed a statistically significant improvement following both treatments and this continued into the maintenance phase. There was a numerical but not statistically significant gain in the variety of verbs used in spoken narratives. Participants predominantly chose positive terms to describe their experience of the programme, but did not prefer one therapy over the other. Conclusions & Implications: Preliminary findings suggest that an activity‐oriented therapy approach, whether it involves carrying out tasks or paper‐based activities, can result in clinically meaningful improvements for people with chronic aphasia. Further research using a randomized control trial is required to determine whether cooking therapy alone is effective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Geographical and cultural differences have been shown to affect public attitudes towards stuttering. However, increasingly for many individuals in the world one's birthplace culture (or home culture) and culture in their local geographical environment (or host culture) are not the same. Aims: The effects of home culture and host culture in shaping the attitudes towards stuttering among students with British, Arab and Chinese home cultures attending one British university were explored. The effects of host culture were investigated by considering the time lived in the UK for Arab and Chinese students. Methods & Procedures: The study used a descriptive survey design that included a standardized self‐delivered questionnaire: the Public Opinion Survey of Human Attributes—Stuttering (POSHA‐S). Purposive sampling was carried out thorough volunteer mailing lists, student societies and personal contact. The final sample of 156 university students included 51 British, 52 Arab and 53 Chinese students. Outcomes & Results: Overall stuttering score (OSS), which is indicative of attitudes towards stuttering, was highest for British participants (mean = 30) and lowest for Chinese participants (mean = 13), with Arab participants falling in the middle (mean = 21). The differences in attitudes between the three groups were statistically significant, suggesting that home culture is a contributor to attitudes towards stuttering. A post‐hoc item analysis of the POSHA‐S revealed numerous specific differences in attitudes towards stuttering between the three groups, including differences in the attribution of the aetiology of stuttering, their role in helping people who stutter (PWS) and sympathy toward PWS. Time lived in the UK—a proxy measure for the role of host culture—did not significantly influence the attitudes of Arab and Chinese respondents. Conclusions & Implications: To varying degrees, all three groups had evidence of stereotypical stuttering attitudes. Nevertheless, given similar ages and student status in the same university, observed respondent differences confirm previous research documenting geographical influences on stuttering attitudes in Western versus East Asian and Middle Eastern samples. The study also provides evidence that home culture was influential in shaping attitudes towards stuttering, but host culture was not a significant contributor. What this paper addsWhat is already known on the subjectPublic stereotypical beliefs towards stuttering are found across the world and hinder the quality of life among PWS. Different cultures have unique stereotypical beliefs towards PWS.What this study adds to existing knowledgeTo the best of our knowledge, no other study has investigated specifically if individuals who live in the same geographical location but have different home cultures, have similar or differing attitudes towards PWS. Results provide preliminary evidence that the home culture of an individual was influential in shaping attitudes towards PWS, but host culture, measured as the length of time living in the current geographical location, did not have a significant relationship with attitudes towards stuttering.What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this workThis study highlights that culturally sensitive clinical practice should not be based on just the culture of the region but should take home culture into consideration as well, and clinicians should discuss cultural perceptions of stuttering with clients in clinical practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Stuttering and word-finding difficulty (WFD) are two types of communication difficulty that occur frequently in children who learn English as an additional language (EAL), as well as those who only speak English. The two disorders require different, specific forms of intervention. Prior research has described the symptoms of each type of difficulty. This paper describes the development of a non-word repetition test (UNWR), applicable across languages, that was validated by comparing groups of children identified by their speech and language symptoms as having either stuttering or WFD. Aims To evaluate whether non-word repetition scores using the UNWR test distinguished between children who stutter and those who have a WFD, irrespective of the children's first language. Methods & Procedures UNWR was administered to ninety-six 4-5-year-old children attending UK schools (20.83% of whom had EAL). The children's speech samples in English were assessed for symptoms of stuttering and WFD. UNWR scores were calculated. Outcomes & Results Regression models were fitted to establish whether language group (English only/EAL) and symptoms of (1) stuttering and (2) WFD predicted UNWR scores. Stuttering symptoms predicted UNWR, whereas WFD did not. These two findings suggest that UNWR scores dissociate stuttering from WFD. There were no differences between monolingual English-speakers and children who had EAL. Conclusions & Implications UNWR scores distinguish between stuttering and WFD irrespective of language(s) spoken, allowing future evaluation of a range of languages in clinics or schools. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Children who are learning English as an Additional Language (EAL) may start school with smaller vocabularies than their monolingual peers. Given the links between vocabulary and academic achievement, it is important to evaluate interventions that are designed to support vocabulary learning in this group of children. Aims To evaluate an intervention, namely Sign-Supported English (SSE), which uses conventionalized manual gestures alongside spoken words to support the learning of English vocabulary by children with EAL. Specifically, the paper investigates whether SSE has a positive impact on Reception class children's vocabulary development over and above English-only input, as measured over a 6-month period. Methods & Procedures A total of 104 children aged 4-5 years were recruited from two neighbouring schools in a borough of Outer London. A subset of 66 had EAL. In one school, the teachers used SSE, and in the other school they did not. Pupils in each school were tested at two time points (the beginning of terms 1 and 3) using three different assessments of vocabulary. Classroom-based observations of the teachers' and pupils' manual communication were also carried out. Outcomes & Results Results of the vocabulary assessments revealed that using SSE had no effect on how well children with EAL learnt English vocabulary: EAL pupils from the SSE school did not learn more words than EAL pupils at the comparison school. SSE was used in almost half of the teachers' observations in the SSE school, while spontaneous gestures were used with similar frequency by teachers in the comparison school. Conclusions & Implications There are alternative explanations for the results. The first is that the use of signs alongside spoken English does not help EAL children of this age to learn words. Alternatively, SSE does have an effect, but we were unable to detect it because (1) teachers in the comparison school used very rich natural gesture and/or (2) teachers in the SSE school did not know enough BSL and this inhibited their use of spontaneous gesture. Explanations (1) and (2) might mean that the potential benefits of spontaneous gesture in the input to the children in the comparison school matched any potential benefits of SSE. We suggest that studying early years professionals' spontaneous use of gesture, and how their gesture supports the language learning of all children in their class, would be fruitful areas of research for the future. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]