JCPSLP March 2013_lo-res

9 / 56

JCPSLP Volume 15, Number 1 2013 7
Computer-assisted assessment and intervention
Karla N.
Washington (top)
and Genese
Warr-Leeper
This article
has been
peer-
reviewed
Keywords
expressive
grammar
intervention
growth
preschoolers
specific
language
impairment
spontaneous
language
establish well-specified phonological representations for
specific language forms, e.g., finite verbs (Leonard et al.,
2007). These difficulties can affect the speed of information
processing and the ability to maintain the information
presented, resulting in the observed production omissions
(Leonard et al., 2007).
Interventions addressing grammar deficits in
preschoolers with SLI have been successfully implemented
(Leonard, Camarata, Pawlowska, Brown, & Camarata,
2006; 2008; Yoder, Molfese, & Gardner, 2011). However,
we also know that intervention for expressive grammar
deficits may be more effective if there are no corresponding
receptive language impairments (Law, Garrett, Nye, &
Dennis, 2012), suggesting that for children with primary
deficits in expressive grammar, positive outcomes following
intervention are possible.
The authors of the current paper explored the
effectiveness of expressive grammar intervention compared
to no intervention in facilitating grammar development in 3-
to 4-year-olds with expressive SLI. Children were assigned
to computer-assisted intervention, table-top intervention,
and a waitlist-control group (Washington, Warr-Leeper,
& Thomas-Stonell, 2011). A newly developed computer
program, My Sentence Builder, designed for use with
preschoolers with SLI with primary expressive grammar
deficits (Washington & Warr-Leeper, 2006), was utilised
for the computer-assisted intervention. Visual support was
provided by colour-coded screens containing pictures for
subjects, verb actions, and objects in target sentences
(i.e., present progressive). For table-top intervention,
objects in play, together with books and picture cards with
actions providing visual supports were used to facilitate
grammatical productions in a drill-play format.
Both interventions resulted in significantly higher total
scores for spontaneous language samples, calculated
using Developmental Sentence Scoring (DSS; Lee, 1974),
at 3 months and at 6 months post-intervention compared
to no intervention. The authors concluded that accelerated
development in grammatical complexity occurred for
preschoolers enrolled in intervention compared to waitlist-
controls (Washington et al., 2011). However, differences
between intervention and no intervention for the magnitude
of growth in grammar skills that occurred and was
maintained over time was not explored in the 2011 study.
This type of analysis would yield important information on
whether the intervention resulted in accelerated gains in
grammatical development in preschoolers with SLI and thus
provide stronger support for this intervention.
This study analysed grammatical
development in a sample of 3- to 4-year-olds
with specific language impairment (SLI) over
time. The authors sought to determine if
expressive grammar intervention resulted in
accelerated gains in morphosyntax to “within
normal limits” performance in expressive
grammar for this age group. For this analysis,
spontaneous language outcomes following
expressive grammar intervention were
compared between preschoolers receiving
intervention (n = 22) and those not receiving
intervention, no intervention waitlist-controls
(n = 12). We examined: (a) growth in
grammatical complexity and morpheme use,
and (b) per cent error rates in three
grammatical categories. We found that
intervention was more effective than no
intervention in facilitating accelerated
performance for grammatical complexity,
growth in morpheme use, and lower per cent
error rates in targeted grammatical
categories. This study provides evidence that
expressive grammar intervention is
associated with accelerated development in
grammar skills for preschoolers with SLI.
Specific language impairment (SLI) is characterised
by persistent difficulty in acquiring age-appropriate
language skills, despite having normal nonverbal IQ
and no known secondary impairments (Leonard, 1998).
Grammar deficits are considered a diagnostic feature of
SLI (Cleave & Rice, 1997). Finite verb forms, including
auxiliary is, are, am, pose challenges because these carry
obligatory marking for tense and agreement, and are often
omitted in productions (Cleave & Rice, 1997). Finite verb
endings (e.g., ing ) and other functor words (e.g., articles)
are also vulnerable to omission (Cleave & Rice, 1997). It
is hypothesised that children with SLI experience specific
processing limitations that impact on their language
learning ability (Archibald & Gathercole, 2007; Leonard et
al., 2007). For example, poor short-term memory within
the phonological loop can affect these children’s ability to
Growth in expressive
grammar following inter­
vention for 3- to 4-year-old
preschoolers with SLI
Karla N. Washington and Genese Warr-Leeper