48 / 60
150
ACQ
Volume 13, Number 3 2011
ACQ
uiring Knowledge in Speech, Language and Hearing
problems across a range of conditions. For example,
Paradis et al. (2003) concluded that bilingual children with
specific language impairment were not “more impaired”
than their participants that were monolingual (p. 123). In
fact, Pikho et al. (2007) and Tsybina and Eriks-Brophy
(2010) both cite evidence that early acquisition of a second
language and regular use of two languages may have
beneficial effects on various cognitive abilities in young
children.
Drawing conclusions from the
available research
Although there is only a small body of evidence available to
answer the questions under review, the following
conclusions can be drawn: 1) results were positive,
end of the levels of evidence (Goldstein, 2006; Kohnert,
2010; Paradis, 2010; Thordardottir, 2010). Despite such
critique, however, the conclusions drawn were similar and
positive across the review papers. For example,
Thordardottir concluded “Although the current research
base is limited, the few studies available to date uniformly
suggest that interventions that include a focus on both
languages are superior to those that focus on only one
language” (Thordardottir, 2010, p. 523). Further, “no study
was found which showed a monolingual focus to be
superior to a bilingual one” (Thordardottir, 2010, p.524).
Similarly, Goldstein (2006) “did not find evidence suggesting
bilingual intervention was counter-indicated” (p. 318). More
specifically, these authors found no evidence that
bilingualism exposes children to greater risk of language
Table 2. Research articles identified
Articles identified
Purpose
Type of study. Credibility
of level
Tsybina & Eriks-Brophy (2010). Bilingual
Spanish-English bilingual children.
See detailed analysis in
dialogic book-reading intervention for
table 4
preschoolers with slow expressive
vocabulary development.
Seung, Siddiqi, & Elder (2006). Intervention Case study. 3-year-old Korean-English, diagnosed Autism Spectrum NHMRC – no level
outcomes of a bilingual child with autism.
Disorder. 12 months intervention in Korean, then 6 months English
introduced, then 6 months English-only . Made substantial gains in
Justice & Fey, 2004 –
both languages with “transition” between dominant languages.
Level III
Thordardottir, Elin, Ellis Weismer, & Smith.
Single-case experimental design. 4;6 year old Icelandic-English
NHMRC – no level
(1997). Vocabulary learning in bilingual and bilingual child, alternating treatments for vocabulary, monolingual
monolingual clinical intervention.
English and bilingual. Significant improvement in both conditions,
Justice & Fey, 2004 –
but better results in bilingual for home, but not school vocabulary.
Level II-3
Waltzman, Robbins, et al. (2003). Second
Eighteen profoundly hearing-impaired children who were reported to NHMRC –level III-3
oral language capabilities in children with
be bilingual received cochlear implantation at age 5 or younger.
cochlear implants.
On standard speech perception and receptive and expressive
Justice & Fey, 2004
language measures, some pediatric cochlear implant recipients
– Level II-3
showed competency in a second spoken language in addition to
their primary language. Majority showed age appropriate receptive
and/or expressive language in their primary language commensurate
with normal-hearing children.
Wauters, Knoors, Vervloed, & Aarnoutse.
16 children, 6–10 years old, at school for deaf, learning Dutch and speechBite
TM
classified
(2001). Sign facilitation in word recognition. sign language of the Netherlands. Taught written forms with only
this study as a Randomised
oral accompaniment, or oral and sign. Randomly assigned to
Control Trial, but scored it
conditions. Higher gains came from the speech + sign condition,
only 3/10
although not for all individuals.
Kay-Raining Bird, Cleave, Trudeau,
Compared the language abilities of 8 children with Down syndrome NHMRC –level III-1
Thordardottir, Sutton, & Thorpe. (2005).
being raised bilingually with those of 3 control groups matched on
The language abilities of bilingual children
developmental level: monolingual children with DS (n = 14),
Justice & Fey, 2004 –
with Down syndrome. (Not strictly an
monolingual typically developing (TD) children (n = 18), and bilingual
Level II-1
intervention study; included because of
TD children (n = 11). All children had at least 100 words in their
the population involved)
productive vocabularies but a mean length of utterance of less than
3.5. Found similar profile of language abilities in bilingual children
as for their monolingual peers. There was no evidence of a
detrimental effect of bilingualism, but considerable diversity in the
second-language abilities.
Table 3. Sample of speechBite
TM
search results
Authors
Title
Year
Method
Rating
Wauters et al.
Sign facilitation in word recognition
2001 Randomised controlled trial
03/10
Pihko et al.
Group intervention changes brain activity in bilingual
2007 Non-randomised controlled 03/10
language-impaired children
trial
Hammer et al.
Bilingual children’s language abilities and early reading
2007 Case series
N/A
outcomes in Head Start and kindergarten
Seung H, Siddiqi S, Elder JH Intervention outcomes of a bilingual child with autism
2006 Single-subject design
N/A