HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal My Folders Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Gillam, R. B. Articles by Friel-Patti, S. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Gillam, R. B. Articles by Friel-Patti, S. Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

The Efficacy of Fast ForWord Language Intervention in School-Age Children With Language Impairment: A Randomized Controlled Trial

Diane Frome Loeb
The University of Kansas, Lawrence

LaVae M. Hoffman
University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, Oklahoma City

Thomas Bohman
Craig A. Champlin
The University of Texas at Austin

Linda Thibodeau
The University of Texas at Dallas

Judith Widen
Jayne Brandel
The University of Kansas, Lawrence

Sandy Friel-Patti
The University of Texas at Dallas

Contact author: Ronald B. Gillam, Department of Communicative Disorders and Deaf Education, 1000 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322. E-mail: ron.gillam{at}usu.edu.

Purpose: A randomized controlled trial was conducted to compare the language and auditory processing outcomes of children assigned to receive the Fast ForWord Language intervention (FFW-L) with the outcomes of children assigned to nonspecific or specific language intervention comparison treatments that did not contain modified speech.

Method: Two hundred sixteen children between the ages of 6 and 9 years with language impairments were randomly assigned to 1 of 4 conditions: (a) Fast ForWord Language (FFW-L), (b) academic enrichment (AE), (c) computer-assisted language intervention (CALI), or (d) individualized language intervention (ILI) provided by a speech-language pathologist. All children received 1 hr and 40 min of treatment, 5 days per week, for 6 weeks. Language and auditory processing measures were administered to the children by blinded examiners before treatment, immediately after treatment, 3 months after treatment, and 6 months after treatment.

Results: The children in all 4 conditions improved significantly on a global language test and a test of backward masking. Children with poor backward masking scores who were randomized to the FFW-L condition did not present greater improvement on the language measures than children with poor backward masking scores who were randomized to the other 3 conditions. Effect sizes, analyses of standard error of measurement, and normalization percentages supported the clinical significance of the improvements on the Comprehensive Assessment of Spoken Language (E. Carrow-Woolfolk, 1999). There was a treatment effect for the Blending Words subtest of the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (R. K. Wagner, J. K. Torgesen, & C. A. Rashotte, 1999). Participants in the FFW-L and CALI conditions earned higher phonological awareness scores than children in the ILI and AE conditions at the 6-month follow-up testing.

Conclusion: Fast ForWord Language, the intervention that provided modified speech to address a hypothesized underlying auditory processing deficit, was not more effective at improving general language skills or temporal processing skills than a nonspecific comparison treatment (AE) or specific language intervention comparison treatments (CALI and ILI) that did not contain modified speech stimuli. These findings call into question the temporal processing hypothesis of language impairment and the hypothesized benefits of using acoustically modified speech to improve language skills. The finding that children in the 3 treatment conditions and the active comparison condition made clinically relevant gains on measures of language and temporal auditory processing informs our understanding of the variety of intervention activities that can facilitate development.

KEY WORDS: Fast ForWord, language intervention, auditory processing, clinical trial

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Facebook    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				D. F. Loeb, R. B. Gillam, L. Hoffman, J. Brandel, and J. Marquis The Effects of Fast ForWord Language on the Phonemic Awareness and Reading Skills of School-Age Children With Language Impairments and Poor Reading Skills Am J Speech Lang Pathol, November 1, 2009; 18(4): 376 - 387. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. F. Loeb and D. B. Daniels Administration of a Literacy-Based Curriculum by Teacher and SLP Teams School-Based Issues, October 1, 2009; 10(3): 73 - 77. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. A. Abrams, T. Nicol, S. Zecker, and N. Kraus Abnormal Cortical Processing of the Syllable Rate of Speech in Poor Readers J. Neurosci., June 17, 2009; 29(24): 7686 - 7693. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. S. DeThorne, C. J. Johnson, L. Walder, and J. Mahurin-Smith When "Simon Says" Doesn't Work: Alternatives to Imitation for Facilitating Early Speech Development Am J Speech Lang Pathol, May 1, 2009; 18(2): 133 - 145. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. R Moore, L. F Halliday, and S. Amitay Use of auditory learning to manage listening problems in children Phil Trans R Soc B, February 12, 2009; 364(1515): 409 - 420. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Camarata, K. E. Nelson, H. Gillum, and M. Camarata Incidental receptive language growth associated with expressive grammar intervention in SLI First Language, February 1, 2009; 29(1): 51 - 63. [Abstract] [PDF]