ReviewAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2024
Sources of Misinterpretation in the Input and Their Implications for Language Intervention With English-Speaking Children.
Review in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed, 3 citations in OpenAlex.
- Learning Verbs in Sentences: Children With Developmental Language Disorder and the Role of Retrieval Practice.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2024Article
- Distributional patterns in recast therapy do not systematically align with patterns in conversational data.Journal of communication disordersArticle
- Tense Morphology in Clinicians' Input During Complex Syntax Intervention for Children's Academic Discourse and Literacy Across Dialects.Topics in language disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeIn English and related languages, many preschool-age children with developmental language disorder (DLD) have difficulties using tense and agreement consistently. In this review article, we discuss two potential input-related sources of this difficulty and offer several possible strategies aimed at circumventing input obstacles.
methodWe review a series of studies from English, supplemented by evidence from computational modeling and studies of other languages. Collectively, the studies show that instances of failures to express tense and agreement in DLD resemble portions of larger sentences in everyday input in which tense and agreement marking is appropriately absent. Furthermore, experimental studies show that children's use of tense and agreement can be swayed by manipulating details in fully grammatical input sentences.
resultsThe available evidence points to two particular sources of input that may contribute to tense and agreement inconsistency. One source is the appearance of subject + nonfinite verb sequences that appear in auxiliary-fronted questions (e.g.,
conclusionsAlthough the likely sources of input are a natural part of the language that all children hear, procedures that alter the distribution of this input might be used in the early stages of intervention. Subsequent steps can incorporate more explicit comprehension and production techniques. A variety of suggestions are offered.
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.