JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Journal of Speech and Hearing Research Vol.37 1414-1423 December 1994.
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Camarata, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Camarata, M. N.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Camarata, S. M.
Right arrow Articles by Camarata, M. N.
Social Bookmarking
 Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Comparison of Conversational-Recasting and Imitative Procedures for Training Grammatical Structures in Children With Specific Language Impairment

Stephen M. Camarata 1
Keith E. Nelson 2

Mary N. Camarata 3

1 Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN
2 Pennsylvania State University University Park
3 Bill Wilkerson Center Nashville, TN

CAMARASM{at}CTRVAX.VANDERBILT.EDU

The recent literature on language intervention has become increasingly focused upon developing treatments that more closely parallel normal language acquisition. However, there have been relatively few reports that directly compare imitative procedures to conversational-interactive interventions. The purpose of the present study was to compare the relative effectiveness of imitative intervention and conversational recast language intervention applied to a wide range of grammatical morpheme and complex sentence targets in 21 children with specific language impairment. The results indicated that although both kinds of treatments were effective in triggering acquisition of most targets, consistently fewer presentations to first spontaneous use were required in the conversational procedure. In addition, the transition from elicited production to generalized spontaneous production was more rapid under conversationinteractive treatment. Finally, although imitation treatment was more effective in generating elicited production, a significantly greater number of spontaneous productions occurred under the conversational training procedures. The theoretical and applied ramifications of these findings are discussed.

KEY WORDS: language disorders, language intervention, naturalistic language training, specific language impairment, language generalization

Submitted on October 19, 1993
Accepted on June 14, 1994


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?





HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 1994 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.