Weismer S E, Murray-Branch J, Miller J F
Department of Communicative Disorders, University of Wisconsin, Madison.
J Speech Hear Res. 1993 Oct;36(5):1037-50. doi: 10.1044/jshr.3605.1037.
This investigation compared the effectiveness of two language treatment methods, modeling versus modeling plus evoked production, in promoting productive vocabulary in three toddlers identified as late talkers. A single-subject alternating treatments design was employed in this study in which different sets of words were taught under the two treatment methods during group and individual instruction. Some evidence of differential patterns of response to the treatment types was found for two subjects, but the subjects differed as to which particular treatment method was associated with better performance. Neither treatment method was effective for the third subject. Dynamic assessment measures were only marginally useful in predicting overall lexical learning potential in these subjects, and did not predict response to the two teaching methods. Implications of these results are discussed with regard to the role of language intervention for late talkers.
本研究比较了两种语言治疗方法——示范法与示范加诱发产出法——在促进三名被确定为说话晚的幼儿的产出性词汇方面的有效性。本研究采用了单被试交替治疗设计，即在小组和个别指导期间，在两种治疗方法下教授不同的单词集。两名受试者表现出对治疗类型的不同反应模式的一些证据，但对于哪种特定治疗方法与更好的表现相关，两名受试者存在差异。两种治疗方法对第三名受试者均无效。动态评估措施在预测这些受试者的整体词汇学习潜力方面仅略有帮助，并且无法预测对两种教学方法的反应。本文讨论了这些结果对于语言干预对说话晚的儿童的作用的意义。
