This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Camarata, S. Articles by Camarata, M. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Incidental receptive language growth associated with expressive grammar intervention in SLI

Vanderbilt University, stephen.m.camarata{at}vanderbilt.edu

Keith E. Nelson

Penn State University

Heather Gillum

Vanderbilt University

Mary Camarata

Vanderbilt University

Children with SLI (Specific Language Impairment) display language deficits in the absence of frank neurological lesions, global cognitive deficits or significant clinical hearing loss. Although these children can display disruptions in both receptive and expressive grammar, the intervention literature has been largely focused on expressive deficits. Thus, there are numerous reports in the literature suggesting that expressive language skills can be improved using focused presentation of grammatical targets (cf. conversational recast; Camarata, Nelson & Camarata, 1994), but there have been few investigations addressing the remediation of receptive language skills in SLI for those children with receptive language deficits. The purpose of this study was to examine whether focused grammatical intervention on expressive grammar is associated with growth in receptive language in 21 children with SLI who have receptive language deficits. These children displayed significant growth in receptive language scores as an incidental or secondary association with expressive language intervention and significantly higher gains than seen in a comparison-control group with SLI and receptive language deficits (n = 6). The theoretical and clinical implications of these results are discussed.

Key Words: Language comprehension • language intervention • receptive language disorders • Specific Language Impairment

First Language, Vol. 29, No. 1, 51-63 (2009)
DOI: 10.1177/0142723708098810


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?