ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2020
Data-Informed Guideposts for Decision Making in Enhanced Conversational Recast Treatment.
Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Learning to Learn: Initial Treatment of a Partially Acquired Grammatical Form Speeds Later Learning of Rarely Used Forms for Children With Developmental Language Disorder.Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2026Article
- Less Versus More: The Effect of Recast Length in Treatment of Grammatical Errors.Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2024Article
- An Implicit-Explicit Framework for Intervention Methods in Developmental Language Disorder.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2022Article
- Translating Enhanced Conversational Recast to a Telepractice Setting.Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2022Article
- The Role of Spontaneous Repetitions During Treatment of Morphosyntactic Forms for Children With Developmental Language Disorder.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2021Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Background To maximize treatment efficiency, it would be useful to determine how long to continue a treatment approach before concluding that it is not effective for a particular client, whether and when generalization of treatment is likely to occur, and at what point to end treatment once a child is approaching mastery. Method We analyzed aggregate data from 117 preschoolers with developmental language disorder from a decade of treatment studies on Enhanced Conversational Recast therapy to determine whether the timing of treatment response impacts its overall effectiveness and whether certain levels of accuracy during treatment enable 100% accurate generalization after treatment ends. Results We found that children who take longer than 10 days to answer one item correctly during treatment are unlikely to ever respond to the treatment approach. Generalization accuracy closely followed treatment accuracy, suggesting the two are tightly linked for this treatment method. We did not find evidence that attaining a certain level of accuracy below 100% during treatment enabled children to generalize with 100% accuracy after treatment ended. Conclusions Clinicians using Enhanced Conversational Recast treatment can use these markers to help make evidence-based decisions in their practice regarding how long to continue treatment. Importantly, these data suggest that stopping treatment before a child has attained 100% accuracy (for at least three sessions) does not ensure that a child will ever reach 100% accuracy on their own.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.