Premium
Indirect language therapy for children with persistent language impairment in mainstream primary schools: outcomes from a cohort intervention
Author(s) -
McCartney Elspeth,
Boyle James,
Ellis Sue,
Bannatyne Susan,
Turnbull Mary
Publication year - 2010
Publication title -
international journal of language and communication disorders
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.101
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1460-6984
pISSN - 1368-2822
DOI - 10.3109/13682820903560302
Subject(s) - randomized controlled trial , cohort , psychology , intervention (counseling) , medicine , cohort study , service delivery framework , service (business) , psychiatry , surgery , pathology , economy , economics
Background: A manualized language therapy developed via a randomized controlled trial had proved efficacious in the short‐term in developing expressive language for mainstream primary school children with persistent language impairment. This therapy had been delivered to a predetermined schedule by speech and language therapists or speech and language therapy assistants to children individually or in groups. However, this model of service delivery is no longer the most common model in UK schools, where indirect consultancy approaches with intervention delivered by school staff are often used. Aims: A cohort study was undertaken to investigate whether the therapy was equally efficacious when delivered to comparable children by school staff, rather than speech and language therapists or speech and language therapy assistants. Methods & Procedures: Children in the cohort study were selected using the same criteria as in the randomized controlled trial, and the same manualized therapy was used, but delivered by mainstream school staff using a consultancy model common in the UK. Outcomes were compared with those of randomized controlled trial participants. Outcomes & Results: The gains in expressive language measured in the randomized controlled trial were not replicated in the cohort study. Less language‐learning activity was recorded than had been planned, and less than was delivered in the randomized controlled trial. Implications for ‘consultancy’ speech and language therapist service delivery models in mainstream schools are outlined. Conclusions & Implications: At present, the more efficacious therapy is that delivered by speech and language therapists or speech and language therapy assistants to children individually or in groups. This may be related to more faithful adherence to the interventions schedule, and to a probably greater amount of language‐learning activity undertaken. Intervention delivered via school‐based ‘consultancy’ approaches in schools will require to be carefully monitored by schools and SLT services.