Restriction lift date: 2026-03-07
Intervention factors associated with efficacy, when targeting oral language comprehension of children with or at risk for (developmental) language disorder: a meta‐analysis
Loading...
Files
Date
2025-03-07
Authors
Tarvainen, Sirpa
Frizelle, Pauline
Granroth‐Wilding, Hanna
Stolt, Suvi
Launonen, Kaisa
Journal Title
Journal ISSN
Volume Title
Publisher
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
Published Version
Abstract
Background
Language interventions are complex behavioural interventions, making it difficult to distinguish the specific factors contributing to efficacy. The efficacy of oral language comprehension interventions varies greatly, but the reasons for this have received little attention.
Aims
The aim of this meta-analysis was to examine which intervention factors are associated with efficacy (as expressed with effect sizes) regarding interventions aiming to improve oral language comprehension on its own, or together with expressive language, in children under the age of 18 with or at risk for (developmental) language disorder—(D)LD. Whether the interventions for younger and older children differ from one another regarding efficacy or factors possibly associated with efficacy were also examined.
Methods & Procedures
Studies (n = 46) were identified through two systematic scoping reviews. Factors associated with efficacy were categorized according to the internal characteristics of the intervention as well as factors external to the intervention. Statistical analyses were conducted to examine the association between these factors and intervention efficacy as represented by effect sizes on oral language comprehension outcome measures.
Outcomes & Results
Targeting language, language environment or compensatory strategies indicated efficacy, whereas aiming to improve language processing indicated no clinically significant efficacy. Targeting only receptive language was associated with larger effect sizes than targeting both receptive and expressive language. The interventions for younger (2–7 years) and older (8–13 years) children indicated a similar degree of efficacy, but the way in which these results were achieved varied, as comprehension interventions for younger and older children differed from one another. Many factors associated with effect sizes were also associated with each other making interpretation of the results complex.
Conclusions & Implications
These indicative results suggest that it is not reasonable to target language processing, such as auditory processing or automatization, when aiming to improve oral language comprehension. Targeting receptive language only rather than both receptive and expressive language seems preferable to maximize efficacy when aiming to support solely oral language comprehension instead of targeting both expression and comprehension. The qualitative active ingredients of treatment appear to be more important than the number of intervention hours. Although children of different ages can benefit from interventions to enhance oral language comprehension, the child's age needs to be carefully considered to develop interventions that are optimal. Further research with larger data sets regarding factors contributing to efficacy is still needed before applying these results confidently to clinical practice.
Description
Keywords
Complex interventions , DLD , Language impairment , Receptive language , Speech and language therapy
Citation
Tarvainen, S., Frizelle, P., Granroth‐Wilding, H., Stolt, S. and Launonen, K. (2025) ‘Intervention factors associated with efficacy, when targeting oral language comprehension of children with or at risk for (developmental) language disorder: a meta‐analysis’, International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 60(2), e70013. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.70013
Link to publisher’s version
Copyright
© 2025, Royal College of Speech and Language Therapists. This is the peer reviewed version of the following article: Tarvainen, S., Frizelle, P., Granroth‐Wilding, H., Stolt, S. and Launonen, K. (2025) ‘Intervention factors associated with efficacy, when targeting oral language comprehension of children with or at risk for (Developmental) Language Disorder: A meta‐analysis’, International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders, 60(2), e70013., which has been published in final form at https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.70013. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.