The Association Between Expressive Grammar Intervention and Social and Emergent Literacy Outcomes for Preschoolers With SLI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To determine whether (a) expressive grammar intervention facilitated social and emergent literacy outcomes better than no intervention and (b) expressive grammar gains and/or initial expressive grammar level predicted social and emergent literacy outcomes. METHOD: This investigation was a follow-up to a recently published study exploring the impact of grammatical language intervention on expressive grammar outcomes for preschoolers with specific language impairment (SLI). Twenty-two 3- to 5-year-old preschoolers received ten 20-minute intervention sessions addressing primary deficits in grammatical morphology. Participants' social and emergent literacy skills were not targeted. Twelve children awaiting intervention, chosen from the same selection pool as intervention participants, served as controls. Blind assessments of social and emergent literacy outcomes were completed at preintervention, immediately postintervention, and 3 months postintervention. RESULTS: Only intervention participants experienced significant gains in social and emergent literacy outcomes and maintained these gains for 3 months postintervention. Expressive grammar gains was the only single significant predictor of these outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Expressive grammar intervention was associated with broad impacts on social and emergent literacy outcomes that were maintained beyond the intervention period. Gains in expressive grammar predicted these outcomes. Social and emergent literacy skills were positively affected for preschoolers with SLI during a grammatical language intervention program.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".