Effectiveness of a parent-implemented language intervention for late-to-talk children: A real-world retrospective clinical chart review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background: Previous research has examined the impact of early language interventions on the linguistic skills of late-to-talk children. However, we have little understanding of how such interventions impact communicative participation (i.e., the ability to communicate in real-world contexts) or what factors influence individual response to these interventions. Aims: (1) To evaluate the effectiveness of Target WordTM – The Hanen Program® for Parents of Children Who are Late Talkers, for improving the communicative participation skills of children who are late-to-talk. (2) To explore predictors of Target Word participation-based outcomes. Methods & Procedures: We conducted a retrospective clinical chart review for 76 families who participated in the Target Word program at a publicly-funded clinic. Families completed the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six (FOCUS) and MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories at three time points: pre-intervention, post-intervention, and after a 3-month consolidation period. Regression analysis explored the relation between children’s communicative participation outcomes and potential predictors of change identified by 26 Target Word certified speech and language therapists/pathologists. Outcomes & Results: At the end of intervention, 75% of children had made a clinically significant change on the FOCUS. Clinicians proposed verbal imitation, language development stagnation, and parent interaction style as the top predictors of communicative participation outcomes. Of these, only verbal imitation pre-intervention predicted communicative participation change following the Target Word program. Conclusions & Implications: The Target Word program can facilitate the development communicative participation skills in late-to-talk children. Modifications to the intervention may be needed in order to maximize outcomes for children with limited verbal imitation.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 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) | 0.006 | 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".