Comparison of Two Methods for Promoting Productive Vocabulary in Late Talkers 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 ... Research Article
Research Article  |   October 01, 1993
Comparison of Two Methods for Promoting Productive Vocabulary in Late Talkers
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Susan Ellis Weismer
    Department of Communicative Disorders and Waisman Center on Mental Retardation and Human Development University of Wisconsin, Madison
  • Jamie Murray-Branch
    Department of Communicative Disorders and Waisman Center on Mental Retardation and Human Development University of Wisconsin, Madison
  • Jon F. Miller
    Department of Communicative Disorders and Waisman Center on Mental Retardation and Human Development University of Wisconsin, Madison
  • Contact author: Susan Ellis Weismer, Waisman Center, Rm. 473, University of Wisconsin-Madison, Madison, Wl 53705-2280. E-mail: SWEISMER@vms.macc.wisc.edu
Article Information
Special Populations / Language Disorders / Language / Research Articles
Research Article   |   October 01, 1993
Comparison of Two Methods for Promoting Productive Vocabulary in Late Talkers
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 1993, Vol. 36, 1037-1050. doi:10.1044/jshr.3605.1037
History: Received October 21, 1992 , Accepted May 19, 1993
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, October 1993, Vol. 36, 1037-1050. doi:10.1044/jshr.3605.1037
History: Received October 21, 1992; Accepted May 19, 1993

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.

Acknowledgments
The authors wish to acknowledge the contributions of the graduate student clinicians who participated in the treatment component of this project: Blair Panhorst, John Strei, and Jenni Shoemaker. Special thanks to Allison Sedey and Giuliana Miolo for their role in the collection of the static assessment data. We would also like to acknowledge the efforts of individuals in the SALT Transcription Lab, including Karen Koerber, Stephanie Cobbs-Woloshin, Barbara Wirka, and Christine Hollar. We are grateful to Martin Fujiki, Marc Fey, and an anonymous reviewer for their comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. Partial support for this project was provided by NIH grant R01 HD22393 awarded to Jon F. Miller, Principal Investigator.
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access