ArticleAmerican journal of speech-language pathology2025
What Matters When Providing Conversational Recast Treatment? A Multilevel Modeling Analysis.
Article in American journal of speech-language pathology, 2025. 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.
- 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
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeConversational recasting treatment is generally effective. However, different versions of this treatment and different targets may yield different outcomes for children. Here, we directly compare multiple variations of conversational recasting to determine how modifications to delivery and target impact treatment outcomes.
methodUsing Bayesian hierarchical linear mixed modeling, we compared outcome data from 141 children with developmental language disorder (DLD) across 10 versions of recast treatment compared with enhanced conversational recast treatment (a version that incorporates linguistic variability and attentional cues). We also compared data from a subset of 132 children treated for one of five morphological targets to determine the relative difficulty of learning each target.
resultsResults suggest that seven of the 10 treatment conditions resulted in an average decrease in generalization probe performance relative to enhanced conversational recasting alone. These conditions resulted in probe performance that was between 47% and 84% worse than performance of children who received enhanced conversational recasting with no variations. The remaining three conditions were no better or worse than enhanced conversational recasting. One treatment target was easier to remediate, while the other four were no easier or harder to acquire through treatment.
conclusionsThese results suggest that different variations of conversational recasting facilitate or diminish learning by children with DLD and that clinicians' attention to the form and structure of treatment delivery is necessary to implement best practice for this treatment method. In contrast, clinicians may have more flexibility when selecting targets. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.28055207.
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.