Exploring participation and impairment-based outcomes for Target Word™: A parent-implemented intervention for preschoolers identified as late-to-talk
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study explored participation- and impairment-based outcomes for 24 late-to-talk toddlers ( M age = 20.46 months, SD = 3.09, 62.5% male) whose parents participated in Target Word™, The Hanen Program ® for Parents of Children who are Late Talkers in community clinics across Ontario. Parents completed the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventories (MBCDI), The Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six (FOCUS-34), and a speech sound checklist: (1) prior to starting the program, (2) at the end of direct intervention, and (3) after a consolidation period. Speech-language pathologists classified children’s communicative function using the Communication Function Classification System (CFCS) at all assessment points and provided FOCUS scores from an initial assessment. No change was recorded in CFCS levels between initial assessment and start of the program, but many children moved to a more advanced level by the end of the program ( n = 12) or consolidation period ( n = 19). Significant changes in children’s communicative participation skills (FOCUS) were found between initial assessment and the start of the program, and during the 12-week direct intervention (75% made clinically meaningful change). Significant growth in expressive vocabulary and consonant inventory occurred during direct intervention. Correlations between change on impairment- and participation-based measures were not significant. The Target Word program appears to improve communicative function for late-to-talk preschoolers. Children also made gains in communicative participation skills, expressive vocabulary, and consonant inventory during the program, but further research is needed to determine the effectiveness of Target Word in these areas.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".