Student Language Assessment Scores Advance by more than Eight Months just Twelve Weeks after Laureate Software is added to the Curriculum

Finn, D., Futernick, A., & MacEachern, S. (2005). Efficacy of language intervention software in preschool classrooms. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, San Diego, CA.

Background
LanguageLinks®:Syntax Assessment & Intervention is software designed to train grammatical forms that are essential to early language development. The Medford Massachusetts Public Schools evaluated the impact on student language skills of adding prototypes of LanguageLinks software to their Early Education Program curriculum. Participating in their field-test were 22 preschool students from five different classrooms. All of the students had been classified as having Autism Spectrum Disorder, Pervasive Developmental Disorder, and/or other Developmental Disorders, and all were receiving speech-language pathology services as part of their program.

Methods
Children’s language skills were assessed using the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL; Carrow-Woolfolk, 1999). The children were then divided into two groups matched for age and language ability. Half the children used the prototype syntax software (syntax group), while the others used software designed to train vocabulary and categorization skills (control group). This was done to control for non-specific effects of having opportunities to use a computer. Language ability was assessed a second time with the CASL at the end of 12 weeks. Because the goal was to measure the impact of using the software under typical classroom conditions, teachers were simply asked to have each subject use the appropriate software for about 10-15 minutes, a few times per week. A strict schedule was not suggested; children’s interest level and attention span were to be taken into account, and no child was to be compelled to participate.

Results
In practice, student’s use of the prototype software varied from one to three times per week and averaged 31.4 trials per session. Despite this modest level of use, the Composite CASL scores of children using the prototype software increased by an average of 9.9 units over the 12 weeks; more than twice the improvement seen in the scores of children in the control group, which increased by an average of 4.2 units.  These increases were statistically significant (F(1,20)=22.6, p<0.001). As well, the interaction between treatment group and trials closely approached significance (Group x Trials, F(1,20)=3.73, p=0.067). Contributing to the improvement in scores were increases on each of the Lexical/Semantic (Basic), Syntactic, and Pragmatic subtests of the CASL.


Increases in CASL subtest standard scores of children in each group (mean ± SEM). Considered in terms of Test-Age Equivalents, the language of children using the syntax software advanced by an average of 8.7 months, while those using the control software advanced by an average of 5.3 months.



Change in Test-Age Equivalents based on subtest scores pre- and post-intervention.
While the effectiveness of using language intervention software has been demonstrated previously, those experiments have often involved impracticably intensive intervention schedules or other artificial circumstances. The outcome of the Medford study using the prototype LanguageLinks software is noteworthy because the field-test was conducted under entirely naturalistic conditions.