Vocabulary interventions for second language (L2) learners up to six years of age.

BACKGROUND: Second language (L2) learners are a heterogeneous group. Their L2 skills are highly varied due to internal factors (e.g. cognitive development) and external factors (e.g. cultural and linguistic contexts). As a group, their L2 vocabulary skills appear to be lower than their monolingual peers. This pattern tends to persist over time and may have negative consequences for social interaction and inclusion, learning, and academic achievement. OBJECTIVES: To examine the immediate and long-term effects of second language (L2) vocabulary interventions targeting L2 learners up to six years of age on vocabulary and social-emotional well-being. To examine the associations between L2 vocabulary interventions and the general characteristics of L2 learners (e.g. age, L2 exposure, and L1 skills). SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2022. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of vocabulary interventions for L2 learners up to six years of age with standard care. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were 1. receptive and 2. expressive L2 vocabulary (both proximal and distal), and 3. mean length of utterance (MLU; which is a measure of potential adverse effects). Our secondary outcomes were 4. L2 narrative skills, 5. L1 receptive vocabulary (both proximal and distal), 6. L1 expressive vocabulary (both proximal and distal), 7. L1 listening comprehension, 8. L2 grammatical knowledge, 9. L2 reading comprehension (long-term), and 10. socio-emotional well-being (measured with Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire). MAIN RESULTS: We found 12 studies involving 1943 participants. Two studies were conducted in Norway, seven in the USA, and single studies conducted in Canada, China, and the Netherlands. Ten studies were conducted in preschool settings, with a preschool teacher being the most common delivery agent for the intervention. The interventions were mainly organised as small-group sessions, with three or four children per group. The mean dosage per week was 80 minutes and ranged from 24 to 120 minutes. The studies commonly applied shared book reading (reading aloud with the children), with target words embedded in the books. Standard care differed based on the setting and local conditions in each country or (pre)school. In some studies, the comparison groups received vocabulary instruction in preschool groups. Compared to standard care, the effect of L2 vocabulary interventions varied across outcome measures. For vocabulary measures including words that were taught in the intervention (proximal outcome measures), the intervention effects were large for both receptive L2 vocabulary (i.e. understanding of words; standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.30; 4 studies, 1973 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and expressive L2 vocabulary (i.e. expressing or producing words; SMD 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.17; 6 studies, 1121 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, due to some concerns in the overall risk of bias assessment, substantial heterogeneity, and wide CIs, we have limited confidence in these results. For language measures that did not include taught vocabulary (distal outcome measures), the intervention effects were small for receptive vocabulary (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.55; 6 studies, 1074 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably made little to no difference to expressive vocabulary (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.23; 7 studies, 960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no intervention effect on L2 listening comprehension (SMD 0.19, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.68; 2 studies, 294 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was uncertain, and the interventions probably increased L2 narrative skills slightly (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.59; 2 studies, 487 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Only one study reported data on MLU, and we were unable to examine the effect of intervention on this outcome. The level of certainty of the evidence was downgraded mainly due to inconsistency and imprecision. We were unable to draw conclusions about socio-emotional well-being, or conduct the planned subgroup analyses to examine the second objective, due to lack of data. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this review suggest that, compared to standard care, vocabulary interventions may benefit children's L2 vocabulary learning but have little to no effect on their listening comprehension, though the evidence is uncertain. Vocabulary interventions probably improve the children's storytelling skills slightly. Due to the limited number of studies that met our inclusion criteria and the very low- to moderate-certainty evidence as a result of inconsistency and imprecision, implications for practice should be considered with caution. This review highlights the need for more high-quality trials (e.g. RCTs) of vocabulary interventions for L2 learners, particularly studies of learners outside the USA.

Non-pharmacological interventions for stuttering in children six years and younger.

BACKGROUND: Stuttering, or stammering as it is referred to in some countries, affects a child's ability to speak fluently. It is a common communication disorder, affecting 11% of children by four years of age. Stuttering can be characterized by sound, part word or whole word repetitions, sound prolongations, or blocking of sounds or airflow. Moments of stuttering can also be accompanied by non-verbal behaviours, including visible tension in the speaker's face, eye blinks or head nods. Stuttering can also negatively affect behavioural, social and emotional functioning. OBJECTIVES: Primary objective To assess the immediate and long-term effects of non-pharmacological interventions for stuttering on speech outcomes, communication attitudes, quality of life and potential adverse effects in children aged six years and younger. Secondary objective To describe the relationship between intervention effects and participant characteristics (i.e. child age, IQ, severity, sex and time since stuttering onset) at pretest. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, PsycINFO, nine other databases and two trial registers on 16 September 2020, and Open Grey on 20 October 2020. There were no limits in regards to language, year of publication or type of publication. We also searched the reference lists of included studies and requested data on unpublished trials from authors of published studies. We handsearched conference proceedings and programmes from relevant conferences. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and quasi-RCTs that assessed non-pharmacological interventions for stuttering in young children aged six years and younger. Eligible comparators were no intervention, wait list or management as usual. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. MAIN RESULTS: We identified four eligible RCTs, all of which compared the Lidcombe Program to a wait-list control group. In total, 151 children aged between two and six years participated in the four included studies. In the Lidcombe Program, the parent and their child visit a speech and language therapist (SLT) in a clinic. One study conducted clinic visits by telephone. In each clinic visit, parents were taught how to conduct treatment at home. Two studies took place in Australia, one in New Zealand and one in Germany. Two studies were conducted for nine months, one for 16 weeks and one for 12 weeks. The frequency of clinic visits and practice sessions at home varied within the programme. One study was partially funded by the Rotary Club, Wiesbaden, Germany; and one was funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia. One study did not report funding sources and another reported that they did not receive any funding for the trial.  All four studies reported the outcome of stuttering frequency. One study also reported on speech efficiency, defined as articulation rate. No studies reported the other predetermined outcomes of this review, namely stuttering severity; communication attitudes; emotional, cognitive or psychosocial domains; or adverse effects.  The Lidcombe Program resulted in a lower stuttering frequency percentage syllables stuttered (% SS) than a wait-list control group at post-test, 12 weeks, 16 weeks and nine months postrandomization (mean difference (MD) -2.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) -3.48 to -0.84, 4 studies, 151 participants; P = 0.001; very low-certainty evidence).  However, as the Lidcombe Program is designed to take one to two years to complete, none of the participants in these studies had finished the complete intervention programme at any of the data collection points. We assessed stuttering frequency to have a high risk of overall bias due to high risk of bias in at least one domain within three of four included studies, and to have some concern of overall bias in the fourth, due to some concern in at least one domain. We found moderate-certainty evidence from one study showing that the Lidcombe Program may increase speech efficiency in young children. Only one study reported outcomes at long-term follow-up. The long-term effect of intervention could not be summarized, as the results for most of the children in the control group were missing. However, a within-group comparison was performed between the mean % SS at randomization and the mean % SS at the time of extended follow-up, and showed a significant reduction in frequency of stuttering.  AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review indicates that the Lidcombe Program may result in lower stuttering frequency and higher speech efficiency than a wait-list control group in children aged up to six years at post-test. However, these results should be interpreted with caution due to the very low and moderate certainty of the evidence and the high risk of bias identified in the included studies. Thus, there is a need for further studies from independent researchers, to evaluate the immediate and long-term effects of other non-pharmacological interventions for stuttering compared to no intervention or a wait-list control group.

Norwegian speech-language pathologists treatment practices for preschool children who stutter: An explorative study.

PURPOSE: This study investigated the treatment practices of speech-language pathologists (SLPs) with preschool children who stutter to explore variations in service delivery and, consequently to better inform and support evidence-based practice. METHOD: 121 Norwegian SLPs completed an online survey about stuttering treatment for preschool children aged up to six years. They reported on treatment training, choices, setting, dosage, and outcomes. Data was analysed descriptively. Correlation analyses between years of clinical experience and clinician perceived outcomes were conducted. RESULT: Sixty-eight percent of SLPs were trained in one or more stuttering treatment programs. The majority of SLPs (83 %) provided treatment in person in preschool centers; 59 % reported providing treatment once a week. Thirty-four percent of SLPs reported that they often or always delivered the whole treatment program. Treatment practice addressed various elements, including advising parents about language and communication strategies, supporting the child's self-image, and perceived outcomes. The SLPs reported their clinician perceived outcomes as 'always' or 'often' reduction of audible stuttering (70 %), reduced cognitive and emotional reactions (55 %), and improved communication skills (58 %). Factors influencing treatment choices were identified at the systemic level (e.g., work place regulations) and individual level (e.g., SLPs competency, child's best). CONCLUSION: Stuttering treatment services in Norway differ from those reported in existing literature as treatment is given in preschool settings, only 34 % of SLPs deliver programs as intended whilst the majority use treatment elements only, and still experience positive changes. Provision is variable, and seems influenced by SLP training and competence.

Anxiety and Depression Symptoms in Children and Adolescents Who Stutter: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether there are elevated symptoms of anxiety or depression in children and adolescents (aged 2-18 years) who stutter, and to identify potential moderators of increased symptom severity. METHOD: We conducted a preregistered systematic review of databases and gray literature; 13 articles met criteria for inclusion. A meta-analysis using robust variance estimation was conducted with 11 cohort studies comparing symptoms of anxiety in children and adolescents who do and do not stutter. Twenty-six effect sizes from 11 studies contributed to the summary effect size for anxiety symptoms (851 participants). Meta-analysis of depression outcomes was not possible due to the small number of studies. RESULTS: The summary effect size indicates that children and adolescents who stutter present with increased anxiety symptoms (g = 0.42) compared with nonstuttering peers. There were insufficient studies to robustly analyze depression symptoms, and qualitative review is provided. No significant between-groups differences were reported in any of the depression studies. CONCLUSIONS: Preliminary evidence indicates elevated symptoms of anxiety in some children and adolescents who stutter relative to peers. There was a tendency toward higher depression scores in this population, although reported between-groups differences did not reach statistical significance. These findings require replication in larger, preferably longitudinal studies that consider factors that may moderate risk. Nevertheless, our findings highlight a need for careful monitoring of mental health and well-being in young people who stutter. Supplemental Materials: http://osf.io/5m6zv.

Systematic review of implementation quality of non-pharmacological stuttering intervention trials for children and adolescents.

PURPOSE: This narrative systematic review in line with PRISMA guidelines aims to investigate the implementation quality of previously published group comparison clinical trials of stuttering interventions for children and adolescents (under age 18 years). METHODS: We searched for publications in the databases Eric, PsychInfo, PubMed and Web of Science using the search terms 'stutt*' or 'stamm*'and 'intervention', 'trial' or 'treatment'. We reviewed the implementation elements reported in studies and how these elements were used to report intervention outcomes. RESULTS: 3,017 references published between 1974-2019 were identified. All references were screened for eligibility using predefined selection criteria resulting in 21 included studies. The implementation quality details reported varied between studies. Existing studies most commonly lacked details about the support system provided to SLPs administering the interventions and monitoring of treatment fidelity both in the clinical setting and in the home environment. Support systems for participant's parents and treatment dosage were generally well reported. Dosage was the most common implementation quality element considered in analyses of treatment effect and within discussions of findings. CONCLUSION: Findings highlight the need for future clinical trials of stuttering interventions to closely adhere to systematic guidelines for reporting implementation quality to ensure reliability of trial outcomes. A checklist for reporting clinical trials of non-pharmacological stuttering interventions is proposed.

Early Childhood Professionals' Management of Young Children Who Stutter: A Cross-Sectional Study.

PURPOSE: Early childhood professionals must accurately identify, refer, and treat children who stutter (CWS) within the scope of their respective roles to ensure each child receives the best possible care. This study aimed to investigate similarities and differences between the practices of speech-language pathologists (SLPs), preschool teachers, and public health nurses when they initially meet a young child reported as stuttering. METHOD: This cross-sectional study was conducted in Norway. A sample of 342 early childhood professionals (126 preschool teachers, 95 public health nurses, and 121 SLPs) completed an online survey about their management practices with young children reported as stuttering. Descriptive statistics, ordinal regression, and chi-square analyses were used to analyze data. RESULTS: Initial management practices reflected the different roles and competencies of each profession. Less than 15% of SLPs reported they have access to guidelines for working with CWS. This figure was even lower for public health nurses (6.5%) and preschool teachers (12%). The most common recommendations provided to parents by all professions was giving the child time to talk and maintaining eye contact. Each profession's referral for further speech-language pathology management was most commonly influenced by stuttering severity. All professions reported collaborating about management of CWS; the most common reported collaboration was with preschool teachers. CONCLUSIONS: Initial management practices varied between professions; however, differences largely reflected the roles and competencies of each profession. The development of guidelines and interdisciplinary seminars is recommended to develop a more complementary approach across professions to improve management practices and ensure young CWS receive the best possible care.

The Association between Difficulties with Speech Fluency and Language Skills in a National Age Cohort of Children with Down Syndrome.

The present study (a) addressed difficulties in speech fluency in children with Down syndrome and typically developing children at a similar non-verbal level and (b) examined the association between difficulties with speech fluency and language skills in children with Down syndrome. Data from a cross-sectional parent survey that included questions about children's difficulties with speech fluency, as well as clinical tests from a national age cohort of 43 six-year-olds with Down syndrome and 57 young typically developing children, were collected. Fisher's exact test, Student's t-test, linear regression, and density ellipse scatter plots were used for analysis. There was a significantly higher occurrence of parent-reported difficulties with speech fluency in the children with Down syndrome. Higher language scores were significantly associated with a lower degree of difficulties; this association was strongest for vocabulary and phonological skills. Although difficulties with speech fluency were not reported for all children with Down syndrome, a substantially higher occurrence of such difficulties was reported compared to that for typically developing children. The significant association between difficulties with speech fluency and the level of language functioning suggests that speech fluency and language skills should be taken into consideration when planning treatment for children with Down syndrome.

Immediate and delayed effects of invented writing intervention in preschool.

This study examined the effects of a 10 week invented writing program with five-year-old preschoolers (mean age 5.7 years) on their immediate post intervention literacy skills and also the facilitative effects of the intervention on the subsequent learning to read during the first 6 months of schooling. The study included 105 children (54 girls) from 12 preschools in Norway. The preschools were randomly assigned to the experimental group with the invented writing program, or the control group with the ordinary program offered to preschoolers. The classroom-based programs (40 sessions) were conducted by the children's regular teachers. The children's emergent literacy skills were evaluated using a pre-test, a post-test and a follow-up test 6 months later, and the data were analyzed using latent autoregressive models. The results showed that the invented writing group performed significantly better than the control group on the post-test for the measures of phoneme awareness (d = .54), spelling (d = .65) and word reading (d = .36). Additionally, indirect effects were observed on the delayed follow-up tests on phoneme awareness (d = .45), spelling (d = .48) and word reading (d = .26). In conclusion, we argue that invented writing appeared to smooth the progress of emergent literacy skills in preschool, including the subsequent reading development in school. Contextualized in a semi-consistent orthography and a preschool tradition that does not encourage the learning of written language skills, the findings add to our knowledge of how children learn to write and read.