Search

Purpose: Sociometric studies and adult reports have established that children with Language Disorder (LD) are at risk of peer relationship difficulties. However, we have limited knowledge of how children with LD understand friendship, whom they deem as a good or bad friend, and what role their friendship concepts play in their relationships with peers. This exploratory study aimed to conduct a qualitative investigation into the friendship concepts that children with LD hold and to explore their strategies for making friends. Methods: We conducted multiple, art‐informed interviews on the topic of friendship with 14 children with LD at the age of 6–8 years. Participating children were based in the United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland. They attended enhanced provision, specific speech and language classes and mainstream classrooms. We used framework analysis to map children's responses to Selman's (1979) developmental model of interpersonal understanding, which espouses a theory of children's social development within the context of peer relationships. Results: The understanding of friendship formation in children with LD varied from physical presence to mutual support and sharing. Children's ideas about a good/bad friend represented the lowest developmental stage. Participants from the mainstream classroom demonstrated the highest stages of interpersonal understanding. Children with LD did not mention their language abilities as a barrier to making friends. Conclusion: There are limited studies exploring friendship directly from children with LD, and this study provides insights into this gap, by utilising art‐informed interviews. Children's immature understanding of a good/bad friend points towards a potential susceptibility to false friends, which we suggest needs further empirical validation. We also found that children with LD did not pay attention to their language difficulties when making friends, which raises questions about the ways diagnoses are shared with children. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on the subject: Children with Language Disorder (LD) are at risk of peer relationship difficulties. Studies to date are based on sociometrics and adult reports. Only a few studies employ participatory approaches to research with children, directly engaging children with LD when exploring their friendships What this paper adds: This paper directly asks children with LD about their understanding of friendship and strategies for making friends.Physical proximity and play are important to children.s understanding of friendship especially in recognising good and bad friends. This indicates potential reasons for children with LD being susceptible to false friendsAdditionally, children with LD do not perceive language and communication as a barrier to making friends. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work?: Concepts around friendship and good/bad friends should be routinely assessed and targeted (if appropriate) in interventions. The study highlights the need to continue discussing practices around sharing diagnoses with children with LD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Treatment fidelity refers to the degree to which an intervention is implemented as intended. Promoting treatment fidelity is important to achieve a valid comparison in intervention research. However, it is often underreported: few studies detail the use and development of fidelity measures. This study aims to promote the treatment fidelity of a modified version of the Derbyshire Language Scheme (M‐DLS), a manualised intervention for children with language difficulties, by exploring participants' opinions on training and intervention delivery. Results inform development of a checklist and scoring system to monitor and promote treatment fidelity in a comparison trial. Method: Ten student speech and language therapists (SLTs) and two research assistants (RAs) participated in the study. All received training on the M‐DLS, and 10 were video‐recorded completing role‐plays of an M‐DLS session in small groups. Feedback was gathered after training and role‐plays in focus groups and interviews. Feedback was interpreted using the constructs of the Theoretical Domains Framework (TDF). A treatment fidelity checklist was then developed using the feedback. The first author and two RAs rated role‐play videos using the checklist to trial it to inform amendments and to promote interrater reliability. Interrater agreement was calculated using Spearman's test of correlation. Results: Participants discussed the importance of having clear materials and time to practise sessions. They suggested amendments to the materials and training to promote treatment fidelity. The checklist and scoring system accounted for participants' suggestions, with amendments detailed in a log. Spearman's correlation results suggested agreement between the raters was strong. Conclusions: Results emphasise the importance of training quality, practice and reflective opportunities and clear materials to promote treatment fidelity. The construction of the checklist and scoring system was described in detail, informing the development of future checklists. After further trialling, the checklist can be used to ensure the M‐DLS is delivered with high treatment fidelity in the comparison trial. What this paper adds: What is already known on this subject: Treatment fidelity is an essential component of intervention effectiveness and efficacy studies, ensuring the intervention is delivered as intended. It is also an essential component of evidence-based clinical practice. However, few research studies report the treatment fidelity process or publish the checklists used, depriving clinicians of useful information for implementation. What this study adds: This study describes in detail the iterative process of treatment fidelity checklist development, engaging those implementing the intervention in development. This ensured clarity and interrater reliability of the checklist. Furthermore, a novel scoring system was developed so that accuracy of implementation can be easily compared across users and across practice attempts. What are the clinical implications of this work?: The importance of treatment fidelity when implementing effective and efficacious interventions cannot be overstated. The treatment fidelity checklist developed for research can be easily adopted to support accurate implementation in clinical practice through an audit process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Very young children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds often show poorer language development. Whilst there have been attempts to provide early intervention programmes, these sometimes miss the most disadvantaged groups. Aims: This report presents preliminary feasibility and effectiveness data for a novel language intervention designed for parents of toddlers in the United Kingdom. Methods and Procedures: In total, 43 UK families of 2–4‐year‐olds were recruited to the study, half of whom completed an 8‐week course (Tots Talking) focussed on parent interaction, and half of whom acted as wait‐list controls. Results and Outcomes: Results suggest that such programmes are feasible for families with 86% staying in the intervention. In addition, greater changes in underlying communication skills such as joint attention and gesture were evident compared to wait‐list controls. Conclusions and Implications: We conclude that pre‐verbal skills may be more important to measure as initial outcomes than language or vocabulary change in this population. What This Paper Adds: What is already known on the subject: Children from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds are at higher risk of communication difficulties and there is a need for community intervention programmes for very young children. What this study adds: This study suggests that such programmes can be feasible and effective, but that very early/basic communicative skills (such as joint attention) may be boosted first rather than language or vocabulary. What are the clinical implications of this work?: Children's centres and other community services could feasibly run short parent facing courses emphasising contingent communication in low SES families and other diverse groups. These may be more successful run with younger preschoolers. Joint attention may be a better focus of intervention before expecting vocabulary or language change. Community health professionals may find this information useful in referring and supporting families in need. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]