Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33784467›Full record

ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2021

A Vocabulary Acquisition and Usage for Late Talkers Treatment Efficacy Study: The Effect of Input Utterance Length and Identification of Responder Profiles.

Mary Alt, Cecilia R Figueroa, Heidi M Mettler, Nora Evans-Reitz, Jessie A Erikson

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.9field-weighted citation impact, top 15% 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

5 citing papers in PubMed, 11 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Less Versus More: The Effect of Recast Length in Treatment of Grammatical Errors.Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2024
    Article
  5. 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

5 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Mary AltDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson.
Cecilia R FigueroaDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson.
Heidi M MettlerDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson.
Nora Evans-ReitzDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson.
Jessie A EriksonDepartment of Speech, Language, and Hearing Sciences, The University of Arizona, Tucson.
Google (United States) · US

Funding

Identification of treatment parameters that maximize language treatment efficacy for children. TALK Initiative supplement.R01DC015642 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI MARY ALT, Elena M Plante · 2016 to 2026
$6.8M
RECEPTIVE SKILLS IN DEVELOPMENTAL LANGUAGE DISORDERR01DC004726 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA · PI PLANTE, ELENA M · 2002 to 2010
$2.6M
NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC004726NIDCD NIH HHS R01 DC015642
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose This study examined the efficacy of the Vocabulary Acquisition and Usage for Late Talkers (VAULT) treatment in a version that manipulated the length of clinician utterance in which a target word was presented (dose length). The study also explored ways to characterize treatment responders versus nonresponders. Method Nineteen primarily English-speaking late-talking toddlers (aged 24-34 months at treatment onset) received VAULT and were quasirandomly assigned to have target words presented in grammatical utterances matching one of two lengths: brief (four words or fewer) or extended (five words or more). Children were measured on their pre- and posttreatment production of (a) target and control words specific to treatment and (b) words not specific to treatment. Classification and Regression Tree (CART) analysis was used to classify responders versus nonresponders. Results VAULT was successful as a whole (i.e., treatment effect sizes of greater than 0), with no difference between the brief and extended conditions. Despite the overall significant treatment effect, the treatment was not successful for all participants. CART results (using participants from the current study and a previous iteration of VAULT) provided a dual-node decision tree for classifying treatment responders versus nonresponders. Conclusions The input-based VAULT treatment protocol is efficacious and offers some flexibility in terms of utterance length. When VAULT works, it works well. The CART decision tree uses pretreatment vocabulary levels and performance in the first two treatment sessions to provide clinicians with promising guidelines for who is likely to be a nonresponder and thus might need a modified treatment plan. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.14226641.

Indexed as

Language Development DisordersVocabularyHumansTreatment Outcome

Identifiers

PMID33784467
PMCPMC8608147
OpenAlexW3141023366

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.