Bilingual Versus Monolingual Vocabulary Instruction for Bilingual Children with Hearing Loss

Vocabulary interventions for second language (L2) learners up to six years of age

BACKGROUND

Second language (L2) learners are a heterogeneous group. Their L2 skills are highly varied due to internal factors (e.g. cognitive development) and external factors (e.g. cultural and linguistic contexts). As a group, their L2 vocabulary skills appear to be lower than their monolingual peers. This pattern tends to persist over time and may have negative consequences for social interaction and inclusion, learning, and academic achievement.

OBJECTIVES

To examine the immediate and long-term effects of second language (L2) vocabulary interventions targeting L2 learners up to six years of age on vocabulary and social-emotional well-being. To examine the associations between L2 vocabulary interventions and the general characteristics of L2 learners (e.g. age, L2 exposure, and L1 skills).

SEARCH METHODS

We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search date was December 2022.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing the effects of vocabulary interventions for L2 learners up to six years of age with standard care.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were 1. receptive and 2. expressive L2 vocabulary (both proximal and distal), and 3. mean length of utterance (MLU; which is a measure of potential adverse effects). Our secondary outcomes were 4. L2 narrative skills, 5. L1 receptive vocabulary (both proximal and distal), 6. L1 expressive vocabulary (both proximal and distal), 7. L1 listening comprehension, 8. L2 grammatical knowledge, 9. L2 reading comprehension (long-term), and 10. socio-emotional well-being (measured with Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire).

MAIN RESULTS

We found 12 studies involving 1943 participants. Two studies were conducted in Norway, seven in the USA, and single studies conducted in Canada, China, and the Netherlands. Ten studies were conducted in preschool settings, with a preschool teacher being the most common delivery agent for the intervention. The interventions were mainly organised as small-group sessions, with three or four children per group. The mean dosage per week was 80 minutes and ranged from 24 to 120 minutes. The studies commonly applied shared book reading (reading aloud with the children), with target words embedded in the books. Standard care differed based on the setting and local conditions in each country or (pre)school. In some studies, the comparison groups received vocabulary instruction in preschool groups. Compared to standard care, the effect of L2 vocabulary interventions varied across outcome measures. For vocabulary measures including words that were taught in the intervention (proximal outcome measures), the intervention effects were large for both receptive L2 vocabulary (i.e. understanding of words; standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.97, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.64 to 1.30; 4 studies, 1973 participants; very low-certainty evidence) and expressive L2 vocabulary (i.e. expressing or producing words; SMD 0.86, 95% CI 0.56 to 1.17; 6 studies, 1121 participants; very low-certainty evidence). However, due to some concerns in the overall risk of bias assessment, substantial heterogeneity, and wide CIs, we have limited confidence in these results. For language measures that did not include taught vocabulary (distal outcome measures), the intervention effects were small for receptive vocabulary (SMD 0.29, 95% CI 0.02 to 0.55; 6 studies, 1074 participants; low-certainty evidence) and probably made little to no difference to expressive vocabulary (SMD 0.10, 95% CI -0.02 to 0.23; 7 studies, 960 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was little to no intervention effect on L2 listening comprehension (SMD 0.19, 95% CI -0.31 to 0.68; 2 studies, 294 participants; very low-certainty evidence), but the evidence was uncertain, and the interventions probably increased L2 narrative skills slightly (SMD 0.37, 95% CI 0.14 to 0.59; 2 studies, 487 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Only one study reported data on MLU, and we were unable to examine the effect of intervention on this outcome. The level of certainty of the evidence was downgraded mainly due to inconsistency and imprecision. We were unable to draw conclusions about socio-emotional well-being, or conduct the planned subgroup analyses to examine the second objective, due to lack of data.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Findings from this review suggest that, compared to standard care, vocabulary interventions may benefit children's L2 vocabulary learning but have little to no effect on their listening comprehension, though the evidence is uncertain. Vocabulary interventions probably improve the children's storytelling skills slightly. Due to the limited number of studies that met our inclusion criteria and the very low- to moderate-certainty evidence as a result of inconsistency and imprecision, implications for practice should be considered with caution. This review highlights the need for more high-quality trials (e.g. RCTs) of vocabulary interventions for L2 learners, particularly studies of learners outside the USA.

Impact of Meeting Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Benchmarks on Spoken Language

This study compared preschool spoken language outcomes for children with hearing loss who met Early Hearing Detection and Intervention (EHDI) guidelines to those who did not, as well as to compare outcomes for those who met current EHDI guidelines to those who met earlier benchmarks. Finally, the predictive role of meeting each component of the guidelines was evaluated relative to language outcomes. Children who met the EHDI guidelines had higher language scores than those who did not; however, there was no difference between children who met the current guidelines and those who met the earlier benchmarks. Entering early intervention by six months of age was the only unique predictor of spoken language outcomes. The findings suggest that EHDI programs should target increasing the number of children with hearing loss who meet the current 1-3-6 benchmarks with a particular focus on enrollment in early intervention by six months.

Using the Ecological Validity Model to adapt parent-involved interventions for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder in the Latinx community: A conceptual review

BACKGROUND

Parent involvement in interventions for children with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) provides parents with education about ASD diagnosis and treatment, improves parent-child interactions, and offers access to cost-effective resources. The Latinx population represents the fastest growing minority population in the United States and a growing percentage of children seeking ASD intervention services.

AIMS

Identify factors that impact Latinx parent involvement in interventions for children with ASD as an example of cultural considerations for diverse families and communities.

METHODS AND PROCEDURES

In this conceptual overview, we synthesize literature on cultural considerations for intervention design/adaptation for Latinx families and parent involvement in interventions for children with ASD through the lens of the Ecological Validity Model.

OUTCOMES AND RESULTS

Frameworks such as the Ecological Validity Model can be used when creating or adapting interventions for specific cultural groups. Parent-involved interventions for children with ASD in the Latinx community should consider language of intervention delivery, family make-up, community support, disability knowledge of the family, the therapeutic alliance, and methods of implementation.

CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS

Incorporating cultural components into parent-involved interventions will best support intervention implementation and dissemination in diverse communities. Research is needed into the process and outcomes of intervention programs in order to increase understanding of how specific cultural dimensions impact participation in and efficacy of parent-involved interventions for Latinx families of children with ASD.

Cultural and Linguistic Adaptations of Early Language Interventions: Recommendations for Advancing Research and Practice

Purpose Speech-language pathologists are responsible for providing culturally and linguistically responsive early language intervention services for legal, ethical, and economic reasons. Yet, speech-language pathologists face challenges in meeting this directive when children are from racial, ethnic, or linguistic backgrounds that differ from their own. Guidance is needed to support adaptation of evidence-based interventions to account for children's home culture(s) and language(s). This review article (a) describes a systematic review of the adaptation processes applied in early language interventions delivered to culturally and linguistically diverse populations in the current literature and (b) offers a robust example of an adaptation of an early language intervention for families of Spanish-speaking Mexican immigrant origin. Method Thirty-three studies of early language interventions adapted for culturally and linguistically diverse children ages 6 years and younger were reviewed. Codes were applied to describe to what extent studies document the purpose of the adaptation, the adaptation process, the adapted components, and the evaluation of the adapted intervention. Results Most studies specified the purpose of adaptations to the intervention evaluation, content, or delivery, which typically addressed children's language(s) but not culture. Study authors provided limited information about who made the adaptations, how, and when. Few studies detailed translation processes or included pilot testing. Only one used a comprehensive framework to guide adaptation. A case study extensively documents the adaptation process of the Language and Play Every Day en español program. Conclusions Future early language intervention adaptations should focus on both linguistic and cultural factors and include detailed descriptions of intervention development, evaluation, and replication. The case study presented here may serve as an example. Increased access to such information can support research on early language interventions for diverse populations and, ultimately, responsive service provision.