Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30924581›Full record

Trial reportInternational journal of language & communication disorders2019

Improving storytelling and vocabulary in secondary school students with language disorder: a randomized controlled trial.

Victoria L Joffe, Lorna Rixon, Charles Hulme

Open access · hybridAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in International journal of language & communication disorders, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
6citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

6 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Systemic support for learners with developmental language disorders in Zimbabwe and South Africa.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2022
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Victoria L JoffeSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.
Lorna RixonSchool of Health Sciences, City, University of London, London, UK.ORCID 0000-0002-0911-7366
Charles HulmeDepartment of Education, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
City, University of London · GBUniversity of Oxford · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundAlthough language and communication difficulties are common in secondary school students, there has been limited research into the efficacy of interventions for adolescents with language and communication difficulties.

aimsTo investigate the efficacy of teaching assistant (TA)-delivered narrative and vocabulary interventions to mainstream secondary school-aged students with language disorder. METHODS & PROCEDURES: A randomized controlled trial (RCT) of a language and communication intervention was used to evaluate the efficacy of vocabulary and narrative interventions to improve the vocabulary and narrative performance of adolescents (mean age = 12.8 years) with language disorder. The language and communication programmes (narrative, vocabulary and combined narrative and vocabulary) were delivered by TAs in the classroom, three times per week, for 45-60 min each, over 6 weeks, totalling 18 sessions. Standardized and intervention-specific measures were used as outcomes. OUTCOMES &

resultsTwenty-one schools with 358 eligible participants were recruited. The three intervention groups showed significant improvements (d = .296) on a narrative latent variable defined by a standardized narrative assessment (the Expression, Reception and Recall of Narrative Instrument-ERRNI), but there were no significant improvements on an overall vocabulary latent variable compared with the waiting control group. Differential effects were found on some non-standardized intervention-specific measures with the narrative group making significantly more progress on narrative tasks compared with the waiting control group, the vocabulary group showing the same pattern on specific vocabulary tasks, and the combined narrative and vocabulary group making significantly more progress on some of the intervention-specific narrative, and all the intervention-specific vocabulary outcomes compared with the waiting control group. CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: It is possible to improve narrative but not vocabulary skills, as assessed by standardized measures, in secondary school students with a relatively brief group TA-delivered intervention. There were differential effects for both narrative and vocabulary with intervention-specific measures. Future work is required to explore whether more intensive and longer lasting interventions would be more effective and to identify which students in this age group are most likely to benefit from such interventions.

Indexed as

CommunicationLanguageVocabularyAdolescentChildFemaleHumansLanguage DisordersLanguage TherapyMaleStudentsTreatment Outcomeadolescencelanguage disordernarrative interventionsecondary schoolteaching assistantsvocabulary intervention

Identifiers

PMID30924581
PMCPMC6618097
OpenAlexW2925861204

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.