Using Laureate’s Language Intervention Software as part of a Summer Treatment Program Leads to Clinically Significant Improvements in Language Ability.

Gillam, R.B., Frome Loeb, D., Hoffman, L.M., Bohman, T., Champlin, C.A., Thibodeau, L., Widen, J., Brandel, J., & Friel-Patti, S. (2008). The efficacy of Fast ForWord language intervention in school-age children with language impairment: A randomized controlledtrial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 51, 97 - 119.

Background
Given that language impairment is pervasive among young school-age children, it is important to determine whether popular language intervention practices are effective and to identify treatment variables that may contribute to greater effectiveness. These considerations led the authors to conduct an NIH-sponsored large scale randomized and controlled comparison of four intervention practices. These included (a) software intervention using modified sounds and speech (Fast ForWord LanguageTM; FFW-L; Scientific Learning Corp, 1998); (b) intervention using software published by Laureate Learning Systems (Microcomputer Language Assessment and Development System (Micro-LADS), Levels 1-6, and Following Directions: One and Two-Level Commands) as well as selected modules from Earobics (Cognitive Concepts, 2000); (c) individualized language intervention with a certified and licensed Speech-Language Pathologist (SLP); and (d) academic enrichment that did not specifically target language development.

Methods
Subjects were 216 children ages 6;0-8;11 who were typically developing, other than having impaired language as defined by substandard scores on two standardized measures of language development. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the four treatment conditions. All children then attended a six week summer program that included 1 hour and 40 minutes of intervention during a 4 hour period that included other activities as well, five days per week. Language status was assessed immediately before and after the summer program, as well as 3- and 6-months later, using the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (CASL; Carrow-Woolfolk, 1999).

Results
Across all treatment conditions, the language abilities of subjects were significantly improved post- versus pre-intervention as measured by their core composite CASL scores (F(1,212)=97.9, P<.001). As well, improvements observed in more than half the subjects at the 6-month follow-up were beyond the 95% confidence limit of their pre-test score, suggesting a level of improvement that significantly exceeds that which would be expected based on longitudinal data collected during standardization of the CASL. In fact, over the course of the study period the CASL scores of more than half the subjects moved above the cutoff score used to define language impairment. There was no main effect of condition or interaction between time and condition.

Discussion
The six week summer program clearly yielded clinically significant language gains as measured by the CASL scores of participants. These gains were comparable regardless of which treatment condition a child experienced. Children who received language intervention via interaction with the computer fared as well as those who received one-on-one intervention with an SLP. No one form of treatment proved superior to others. The authors speculated that the clinical benefits observed in this clinical trial may have arisen in part due to the language experience and information processing demands inherent in all of the experimental conditions, the abundance of positive adult attention paid to the children, and the enrichment provided by summer program experience overall.

The authors concluded that intensive intervention that involves attending and responding to visual and auditory stimuli, along with regular opportunities for peer interaction and positive attention from caring adults, is likely to yield clinically relevant gains in language ability.