Virtual delivery of the Target Word parent-implemented language intervention: A pragmatic waitlist control study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose This study, conducted virtually during the COVID-19 pandemic, aimed to assess children’s vocabulary, grammar, communicative participation, and phonology skills targeted during the virtual parent-implemented Target Word program.Method Forty children between 16 and 27 months who were considered late-to-talk were assigned to immediate treatment or delayed treatment groups using a 1:2 ratio and assessed at four points. Of the 20 children in the immediate treatment group, 16 completed the entire study. Of the 20 children in the delayed treatment group, five completed entire study.Result Across assessment points, most scores in vocabulary (p = 0.17; p = 0.28; p = 0.40), grammar (complexity: p = 0.65; mean length of utterance: p = 0.21; p = 0. 77; p = 0.29) and communicative participation (p = 0.88; p = 0.12; p = 0.98) were not statistically different between groups. However, children made clinically meaningful gains in communicative participation during their Target Word programs (16 and 25 points of average change on the FOCUS-34). Statistically significant differences in phonology were observed during Target Word (p< .01, p = 0.02, p = 0.15). Statistically significant differences in grammar complexity were observed (p< .01; p = 0.02), but not aligned with intervention periods.Conclusion Further research is needed to support interpretation of these results, including additional research to explore the most appropriate service pathways for children who are late-to-talk.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".