Intervention Goals for Preschoolers With Language Difficulties and Disorders: A Scoping Review Using the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health Framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The primary aim of this scoping review was to categorize language therapy goals reported in intervention studies for preschoolers (i.e., children from birth to 5;0 [years;months]) with language difficulties and disorders within the World Health Organization's International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health (ICF) framework. A secondary aim was to determine whether different therapy goals were reported for two language difficulty/disorder subtypes (i.e., comparing language difficulty/disorder associated with a biomedical condition to those without an associated biomedical condition). METHOD: The scoping review followed Arksey and O'Malley (2005) guidelines. Articles were retrieved from speechBITE, with age (under 5 years), intervention area (language), and study design (all but systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines) specified as inclusion criteria. Language goals were extracted and categorized into the ICF components, and the distribution of goals across ICF components was compared for studies involving children with the two language difficulty/disorder subtypes. RESULTS: A total of 287 articles were identified; 140 met inclusion criteria. Of the 293 goals extracted, 48% aligned with the activities component of the ICF framework, followed by participation (26%), environmental factors (20%), body functions and structures (3%), and personal factors (3%). Most participation-focused goals were reported from intervention studies involving preschoolers with a language difficulty/disorder associated with a biomedical condition. CONCLUSIONS: Few participation-focused goals were reported in intervention studies for preschoolers with language difficulty/disorder without an associated condition. Future work is needed to support integrating the ICF framework in goal setting for both research and practice.
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 | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".