Non‐linguistic cognitive treatment for primary language impairment

References

• Ball K., Edwards J. D., Ross L. A. The impact of speed of processing training on cognitive and everyday functions. Journals of Gerontology 2007; 62B: 19–31
   Google Scholar
• Brown L., Sherbenou R., Johnsen S. Test of Nonverbal Intelligence‐3. Pro‐Ed, Austin, TX 1997
   Google Scholar
• Brownell R. Receptive One‐Word Picture Vocabulary Test. Academic Therapy Publications, Novato, CA 2000a
   Google Scholar
• Brownell R. Expressive One‐Word Picture Vocabulary Test. Academic Therapy Publications, Novato, CA 2000b
   Google Scholar
• Coelho C. A. Direct attention training as a treatment for reading impairment in mild aphasia. Aphasiology 2005; 19: 275–283
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cohen W., Hodson A., O'Hare A., Boyle J., Durrani T., McCartney E., Mattey M., Naftalin L., Watson J. Effects of computer‐based intervention through acoustically modified speech (Fast ForWord) in severe mixed receptive–expressive language impairment: outcomes from a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2005; 48: 715–729
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danahy K., Windsor J., Kohnert K. Counting Span and the identification of primary language impairment. International Journal of Language and Communication Disorders 2007; 42: 349–365
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dollaghan C., Campbell T. Nonword repetition and child language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 1998; 47: 496–508
   Google Scholar
• Earobics. Step 2 Clinic Software [computer software]. Houghton Mifflin, Evanston, IL 2006
   Google Scholar
• Fazio B. Arithmetic calculation, short‐term memory, and language performance in children with specific language performance: a 5‐year follow‐up. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 1999; 42: 420–431
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Frisch S. A., Large N. R., Pisoni N. B. Perception of wordlikeness: effects of segment probability and length on processing of nonwords. Journal of Memory and Language 2000; 42: 481–496
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillam R. B., Crofford J. A., Gale M. A., Hoffman L. M. Language change following computer‐assisted language instruction with Fast ForWord or Laureate Learning Systems software. American Journal of Speech‐Language Pathology 2001; 10: 231–247
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gillam R. B., Loeb D. F., Hoffman L. M., Bohman T., Champlin C. A., Thibodeau L., Widen J., Brandel J., Friel‐Patti S. The efficacy of Fast ForWord Language intervention in school‐age children with language impairment: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2008; 51: 97–119
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Graf Estes K., Evans J. L., Else‐Quest N. M. Differences in the nonword repetition performance of children with and without specific language impairment: a meta‐analysis. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2007; 50: 177–195
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hamill D. D., Larsen S. C. The effectiveness of psycholinguistic training: a reaffirmation of position. Exceptional Children 1978; 44: 402–414
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayiou‐Thomas M. E., Bishop D. V. M., Plunkett K. Simulating SLI: general cognitive processing stressors can produce a specific linguistic profile. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2004; 47: 1347–1362
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hoffman L., Gillam R. Verbal and spatial information processing constraints in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2004; 47: 114–125
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jaeggi S. M., Buschkuehl M., Jonides J., Perrig W. J. Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory. PNAS 2008; 105: 6829–6833
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Just M. A., Carpenter P. A. A capacity theory of comprehension: individual differences in working memory. Psychological Review 1992; 99: 122–149
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kazdin A. E. Single‐case research designs: Methods for clinical and applied settings. Oxford University Press, New York 1982
   Google Scholar
• Kirk S. A., McCarthy J. J., Kirk W. D. Illinois Test of Psycholinguistic Abilities. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL 1968, rev. ed
   Google Scholar
• Kohnert K. Cognitive and cognate‐based treatments for bilingual aphasia: a case study. Brain and Language 2004; 91: 294–302
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohnert K. Language disorders in bilingual children and adults. Plural, San Diego, CA 2008
   Google Scholar
• Kohnert K., Windsor J. The search for common ground part II: nonlinguistic performance by linguistically diverse learners. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2004; 47: 891–903
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kohnert K., Windsor J., Ebert K. D. Primary or ‘specific’ language impairment and children learning a second language. Brain and Language 2009; 109: 101–111
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Law J., Boyle J., Harris F., Harkness A. Screening for speech and language delay: a systematic review of the literature. Health Technology Assessment 1998; 2: 1–184
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Law J., Garrett Z., Nye C. The effectiveness of speech and language therapy interventions for children with primary speech and language delay or disorder. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research 2004; 47: 924–943
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Leonard L., Ellis Weismer S., Miller C. A., Francis D. J., Tomblin J. B., Kail R. V. Speed of processing, working memory, and language impairment in children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2007; 50: 408–428
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McReynolds L. V., Thompson C. K. Flexibility of single‐subject designs part I: review of the basics of single‐subject design. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 1986; 51: 194–203
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Miller C., Kail R., Leonard L., Tomblin B. Speed of processing in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2001; 44: 416–433
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montgomery J. W. Verbal working memory and sentence comprehension in children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 2000; 43: 293–308
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Psychology Software Tools, Inc. E‐Prime [computer software]. Author, Pittsburgh, PA 2000
   Google Scholar
• Robey R. R., Schultz M. C. A model for conducting clinical outcome research: an adaptation of the standard protocol for use in aphasiology. Aphasiology 1998; 12: 787–810
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scarry‐Larkin M., Price E. LocuTour Multimedia Attention and Memory: Volume II [computer software]. Learning Fundamentals, San Luis Obispo, CA 2007
   Google Scholar
• Scientific Learning Corporation. Fast ForWord Language [Computer software]. Author, Berkeley, CA 1998
   Google Scholar
• Semel E., Wiig E. H., Secord W. A. Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals‐4. The Psychological Corporation, TorontoCanada 2003
   Google Scholar
• Sowell V., Parker R., Poplin M., Larsen S. The effects of psycholinguistic training on improving psycholinguistic skills. Learning Disability Quarterly 1979; 2: 69–77
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Staupe R. Blink. Out of the Box Publishing, Madison, WI 2001
   Google Scholar
• Stevens C., Fanning J., Coch D., Sanders L., Neville H. Neural mechanisms of selective auditory attention are enhanced by computerized training: electrophysiological evidence from language‐impaired and typically developing children. Brain Research 2008; 1205: 55–69
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tallal P., Miller S. L., Bedi G., Byma G., Wang X. Q., Nagarajan S. S., Schreiner C., Jenkins W. M., Merzenich M. M. Language comprehension in language‐learning impaired children improved with acoustically modified speech. Science 1996; 271: 81–84
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tomblin J. B., Records N. L., Buckwalter P., Zhang X., Smith E., O'Brien M. Prevalence of specific language impairment in kindergarten children. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 1997; 40: 1245–1260
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ullman M. T., Pierpont E. I. Specific language impairment is not specific to language: the procedural deficit hypothesis. Cortex 2005; 41: 399–433
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• van der Lely H. J. K. Domain‐specific cognitive systems: insights from Grammatical‐SLI. Trends in Cognitive Sciences 2005; 9: 53–59
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wampold B. E. The great psychotherapy debate: models, methods, and findings. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah, NJ 2001
   Google Scholar
• Windsor J., Kohnert K., Loxtercamp A. L., Kan P. F. Performance on nonlinguistic visual tasks by children with language impairment. Applied Psycholinguistics 2008; 29: 237–268
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yim D., Kohnert K., Windsor J. Sensitivity and specificity to LI for a non‐linguistic processing task. Paper presented at the American Speech‐Language‐Hearing Association Annual Convention. 2005, November, San Diego, CA
   Google Scholar