Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-v9fdk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T01:22:32.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Accounting for individual differences when comparing the effectiveness of remedial language teaching methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Philip Friedman  and
Karen A. Friedman
Philip Friedman*
Affiliation:
Howard University
Karen A. Friedman
Affiliation:
Howard University
*
Philip Friedman, Department of Psychoeducational Studies, School of Education, Howard University, Washington, DC 20059
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Two language intervention methods were compared on their effectiveness at improving syntactic structures as measured by gain scores on the Developmental Sentence Scoring (DSS) procedure. Forty-one expressive language delayed children were assigned to either an Interactive approach (n = 25) or a Programmed approach (n = 16), following a series of 13 pre-training diagnostic tests. An analysis of group mean DSS gain scores did not indicate a significant difference between the two teaching methods. However, when individual differences on the pre-training tests were incorporated into further group comparisons, disordinal Aptitude × Treatment interactions occurred for measures of intelligence, initial syntax level, and visual-motor integration. The Interactive approach optimized syntax improvement for children with relatively high pre-training scores on each of the three measures, whereas the Programmed approach resulted in superior syntax performance for low-scoring children.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 1 , Issue 2 , May 1980 , pp. 151 - 170
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Baker, H. J., & Leland, B.Detroit tests of learning aptitude. Indianapolis, Ind.: Bobbs-Merrill, 1967.Google Scholar
Bates, E. Pragmatics and sociolinguistics in child language. In Morehead, D. and Morehead, A. (Eds.), Normal and deficient child language. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1976.Google Scholar
Beery, K. E., & Buktenica, N. A.Developmental test of visual-motor integration. Chicago: Follett, 1967.Google Scholar
Bloom, L.Language development: Form and function in emerging grammars. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1970.Google Scholar
Bracht, G. H.Experimental factors related to aptitude-treatment interactions. Review of Educational Research, 1970, 40, 627–645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bricker, W., & Bricker, D. Early language training strategy. In Schiefelbusch, R. and Lloyd, L. (Eds.), Language perspectives – acquisition, retardation and intervention. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Brookshire, R. H.Speech pathology and the experimental analysis of behavior. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders. 1967, 32, 215–277.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R.The development of wh-questions in child speech. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 1968, 7, 279–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R.A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1973.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, R., & Bellugi, U.Three processes in the child's acquisition of syntax. Harvard Educational Review, 1964, 54, 133–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canter, G. J., & Collins, N. H.Northwestern University articulation proficiency test: Consonant singles. Unpublished research, 1965.Google Scholar
Carrier, J. Application of functional analysis and non-speech response mode to teaching language. In McReynolds, L. (Ed.), Developing systematic procedures for teaching children's language. Washington: American Speech and Hearing Association Monograph No. 18, 1974, 47–95.Google Scholar
Cazden, C. Environmental assistance to the child's acquisition of grammar. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Harvard University, 1965.Google Scholar
Cazden, C.The acquisition of noun and verb inflections. Child Development, 1968, 39, 433–448.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Chomsky, N.Syntactic structures. The Hague: Mouton, 1957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chomsky, N.Aspects of the theory of syntax. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press, 1965.Google Scholar
Cronbach, L. J., & Snow, R. E.Individual differences in learning ability as a function of instructional variables. United States Office of Education final report. Palo Alto: Stanford University, 1969.Google Scholar
Dalali, I. D., & Sheehan, J. G.Stuttering and assertion training. Journal of Communication Disorders, 1974, 7, 97–113.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Doll, E. A.Preschool attainment record. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Services, 1966.Google Scholar
Dowaliby, F. J., & Schumer, H.Teacher-centered versus student-centered mode of college classroom instruction as related to manifest anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, 64, 125–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunn, L. M.Peabody picture vocabulary test. Circle Pines, Minn.: American Guidance Services, 1959.Google Scholar
Ferguson, G. A.Statistical analysis in psychology and education. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.Google Scholar
Fokes, J.Fokes sentence builders. New York: New York Times Teaching Resources, 1976.Google Scholar
Girardeau, F. L., & Spradlin, J. E.A functional analysis approach to speech and language. American Speech and Hearing Association Monograph, No. 14, 1970.Google Scholar
Gray, B. B., & Fygetakis, L.The development of language as a function of programmed conditioning. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 1968, 6, 455–460.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, D. B.Goodenough-Harris drawing test manual. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, 1963.Google Scholar
Harris, D. B., & Hassemer, W. G.Some factors affecting the complexity of children's sentences: The effects of modeling, age, sex, and bilingualism. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1972, 13, 447–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland, A. L.Some applications of behavioral principles to clinical speech problems. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1967, 32, 11–18.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ingram, D., & Eisenson, J. Therapeutic approaches III: Establishing and developing language in congenitally aphasic children. In Eisenson, J. (Ed.), Aphasia in children. New York: Harper & Row, 1972.Google Scholar
Johnson, P. O., & Neyman, J.Tests of certain linear hypotheses and their applications to some educational problems. Statistical Research Memoirs, 1936, 1, 57–93.Google Scholar
Kent, L., Klein, D., Falk, A., & Guenther, H. A language acquisition program for the retarded. In McLean, J., Yoder, D., and Schiefelbusch, R. (Eds.), Language intervention with the retarded. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1972.Google Scholar
Kirk, S., McCarthy, J., & Kirk, W.The Illinois test of psycholinguistic abilities. Urbana, III.: University of Illinois Press, 1968.Google Scholar
Klima, E. S., & Bellugi, U. Syntactic regularities in the speech of children. In Tyons, J. and Wales, R. J., (Eds.), Psycholinguistics papers. Edinburgh University Press, 1966.Google Scholar
Koenigsknecht, R. A., & Friedman, P.Syntax development in boys and girls. Child Development, 1976, 4, 1109–1115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koenigsknecht, R. A., Friedman, P., & Hill, D. Developmental sentence scoring procedures used in repeated measurement of spontaneous syntax usage of preschool children: A longitudinal study. Paper presented at a meeting of the American Speech and Hearing Association, Detroit, 1973.Google Scholar
Koenigsknecht, R. A., & Lee, L. L. Validity and reliability of developmental sentence scoring: A method for measuring syntactic development in children's spontaneous speech. Paper presented at a meeting of the American Speech and Hearing Association, Chicago, 1971.Google Scholar
Koenigsknecht, R. A., & Lee, L. L.The assessment of grammatical development in children and the clinical presentation of grammatical structure to children with language problems. United States Office of Education final report. Evanston, III.: Northwestern University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Lee, L. L.The Northwestern syntax screening test. Evanston, III.: Northwestern University Press, 1969, 1971.Google Scholar
Lee, L. L.A screening test for syntax development. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1970, 55, 103–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lee, L. L.Developmental sentence analysis: A grammatical assessment procedure for speech and language clinicians. Evanston, III.: Northwestern University Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Lee, L. L., & Canter, S. M.Developmental sentence scoring: A clinical procedure for estimating syntactic development in children's spontaneous speech. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders. 1971, 36, 315–340.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lee, L. L., Koenigsknecht, R. A., & Mulhern, S.Interactive language development teaching. Evanston, III.: Northwestern University Press, 1975.Google Scholar
Liebert, R. M., Odom, R. D., Hill, J. H., & Huff, R. L.Effects of age and rule familiarity on the production of modeled language constructions. Developmental Psychology, 1969, 1, 108–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovaas, O. I., Berberich, J. P., Perloff, B. F., & Schaeffer, B.Acquisition of imitative speech by schizophrenic children. Science, 1966, 151, 705–707.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
MacDonald, J., & Blott, J.Environmental language intervention: The rationale for a diagnostic and training strategy through rules, context, and generalization. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1974, 39, 244–256.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, R., & Haroldson, S.The effects of two treatment procedures on stuttering. Journal of Communication Disorders, 1969, 2, 115–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McGrady, H. Verbal and nonverbal functions of school children with speech and language disorders. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1964.Google Scholar
McNeill, D.The acquisition of language: The study of developmental psycholinguistics. New York: Harper & Row, 1970.Google Scholar
McNeill, D. The capacity for the ontogenesis of grammar. In Slobin, D. (Ed.), The ontogenesis of grammar. New York: Academic Press, 1971.Google Scholar
Miller, J., & Yoder, D. An ontogenetic language teaching strategy for retarded children. In Schiefelbusch, R. and Lloyd, L. (Eds.), Language perspectives – acquisition, retardation, and intervention. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Miller, W., & Ervin, S.The development of grammar in child language. Child Development Monographs, 1964, 29, 9–34.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Monsees, E.Structured language. Washington: Children's Speech and Hearing Center, 1970.Google Scholar
Muma, J.The communication game: Dump and play. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders. 1975, 40, 296–300.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Peins, M., McGough, W. E., & Lee, B. S.Evaluation of a taperecorded method of stuttering therapy: Improvement in speaking task. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1972, 15, 364–371.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Risley, T., & Wolf, M.Establishing functional speech in echolalic children. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 1967, 5, 73–88.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rosenthal, T. L., and Whitebrook, J. S.Incentives versus instructions in transmitting grammatical parameters with experimenter as model. Behavioral Research and Therapy, 1970, 8, 189–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sarno, M. T., Silverman, M., & Sands, E.Speech therapy and language recovery in severe aphasia. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 1970, 13, 607–623.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schlesinger, I. Relational concepts underlying language. In Schiefelbusch, R. and Lloyd, L. (Eds.), Language perspectives – acquisition, retardation and intervention. Baltimore: University Park Press, 1974.Google Scholar
Seashore, H. G., Wesman, A. G., & Doppelt, J. E.The standardization of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1950, 14, 99–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shavelson, R. J., Berliner, D. C., Ravitch, M. M., & Loeding, D.Effects of position and type of question on learning from prose material: Interaction of treatments with individual differences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 40–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sommers, R. K.Effectiveness of individual versus group articulation therapy. Paper presented at a meeting of the American Speech and Hearing Association, San Francisco, 1964.Google Scholar
Spencer, E. M. An investigation of the maturation of various factors of auditory perception in preschool children. Ph.D. dissertation, Northwestern University, 1958.Google Scholar
Terman, L. M., & Merrill, M. A.Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1960.Google Scholar
Tobias, S.Sequence, familiarity, and attribute by treatment interaction in programmed instruction. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, 64, 133–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walker, H. M., & Lev, J.Statistical inference. New York: Holt, 1953.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winer, B. J.Statistical principles in experimental design. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1971.Google Scholar
Zwitman, D. H., & Sonderman, J. C.A syntax program design to present base linguistic structures to language-disordered children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 1979, 12, 323–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar