Intervention for children with word-finding difficulties: a parallel group randomised control trial

Figures & data

Table I. Participant data for children in the intervention and waiting control groups.

			CELF-4 Core Language	BAS Non-V	TWF-2 naming	TWF-2 Comp.	TROG	CN Rep	Number of language tests at
Group	Gender	Age (months)	Standard Score	T-score	Standard Score	Raw Score	Standard Score	Standard Score	or more than 1.25 SD below average
Intervention group
Child 1	F	90	81	42	60	68	94	51	3
Child 2	M	81	75	47	62	66	85	72	3
Child 4	F	72	56	40	62	64	82	^a	2
Child 5	M	89	56	44	60	61	72	70	4
Child 8	F	88	72	57	68	64	77	<50^b	4
Child 9	M	85	97	53	82	67	111	78	1
Child 10	M	88	97	53	75	69	104	83	1
Child 15	F	92	84	36	75	67	90	70	2
Child 16	F	81	81	49	62	67	71	83	3
Child 17	M	86	93	46	70	64	104	83	1
Child 19	M	83	88	51	62	64	90	73	2
Mean		85	80	47.09	67.09	65.55	89.09	73.67
SD		5.6	14.39	6.30	7.49	2.34	13.35	10.15
Control group
Child 3	F	91	60	44	60	65	86	52	3
Child 6	M	103	67	47	75	68	80	<46^c	4
Child 7	M	91	81	50	60	63	80	75	4
Child 11	M	75	96	45	68	64	87	62	2
Child 12	M	76	67	41	65	64	85	75	3
Child 13	M	95	75	54	78	68	68	<46^c	4
Child 14	F	88	85	44	79	69	80	63	3
Child 18	F	77	78	47	74	68	91	78	3
Child 20	F	80	88	47	86	65	87	78	1
Mean		86.22	77.44	46.56	71.67	66.00	82.67	69.00
SD		9.76	11.48	3.78	8.99	2.24	6.71	10.07

Key: F: female, M: male, SD: standard deviation, CELF-4: Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals (Semel, Wiig & Secord, 2003), BAS Non-Verbal - pattern construction subtest from the British Ability Scales Edition II (Elliot, Smith & McCullouch, 1996), TWF-2 - Test of Word Finding (German, 2000), TROG – Test for the Reception of Grammar (Bishop, 1989), CN Rep - Children's Test of Nonword Repetition (Gathercole & Baddeley, 1996).

^achild did not complete the task, ^braw score was 6, the lowest raw score in the manual for this age is 8, ^cstandardised scores only available for a raw score of 19 and above at this age, as children scored below this an exact standard score is not provided.

Figure 1. Participant flow diagram.

Table II. Pre- and post-test naming accuracy scores on the 100-item experimental set for the intervention group and the waiting control group.

ID	Group	Baseline 1	Baseline 2	Baseline 3	Post-test
1	I (P)	49	51	54	65
2	I (S)	69	67	62	77
4	I (S)	43	54	52	52
5	I (P)	53	51	54	52
8	I (S)	51	50	56	57
9	I (P)	61	57	60	65
10	I (P)	62	61	68	75
15	I (S)	55	55	56	70
16	I (S)	42	42	40	51
17	I (P)	49	58	55	56
19	I (P)	44	54	54	58
Mean		52.55	54.55	55.55	61.64
SD		8.61	6.47	6.92	9.34
3	C	31	47	41	42
6	C	54	57	56	60
7	C	48	48	46	50
11	C	43	53	47	52
12	C	45	42	38	46
13	C	57	55	62	59
14	C	52	52	58	54
18	C	53	59	59	64
20	C	62	64	64	65
Mean		49.44	53.00	52.33	54.67
SD		9.07	6.71	9.50	7.95

Note: The table provides child’s ID, intervention (I) or control group (C) allocation, the former sub-divided according to the nature of the word attributes which formed the focus of therapy P- phonological, S- Semantic. For naming there are three pre-intervention assessments and a single post-test score from immediately after intervention or wait.

Figure 2. Pre- and post-test mean naming accuracy (percent correct) and standard error bars for the individual picture sets for the intervention and waiting control groups.

Semel, E., Wiig, E.H., & Secord, W.A. (2003). Clinical evaluation of language fundamentals. (4th ed.). Toronto: Psychological Corporation.

 Google Scholar

Elliot, C.D., Smith, P., & McCulloch, K. (1996). British Ability Scales. (2nd ed.) Windsor: NFER-Nelson.

 Google Scholar

German, D. (2000). Test of word finding, Second Edition (TWF-2). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

 Google Scholar

Bishop, D.M.V. (1989). Test for the Reception of Grammar. (2nd ed.). Manchester, England: University of Manchester Age and Cognitive Performance Research Centre.

 Google Scholar

Gathercole, S.E., & Baddeley, A. (1996). The Children's Test of Nonword Repetition. London: Psychological Corporation.

 Google Scholar