Re-use of this article is permitted in accordance with the Terms and Conditions set out at http://wileyonlinelibrary.com/onlineopen#OnlineOpen_Terms
Efficacy of a reading and language intervention for children with Down syndrome: a randomized controlled trial
Article first published online: 26 APR 2012
© 2012 The Authors. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry © 2012 Association for Child and Adolescent Mental Health
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry
Volume 53, Issue 10, pages 1044–1053, October 2012
How to Cite
Burgoyne, K., Duff, F. J., Clarke, P. J., Buckley, S., Snowling, M. J. and Hulme, C. (2012), Efficacy of a reading and language intervention for children with Down syndrome: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 53: 1044–1053. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2012.02557.x
Conflicts of interest statement: No conflicts declared.
- Issue published online: 27 SEP 2012
- Article first published online: 26 APR 2012
- Accepted for publication: 15 March 2012
- Down syndrome;
- early literacy;
- phonological awareness;
Background: This study evaluates the effects of a language and literacy intervention for children with Down syndrome.
Methods: Teaching assistants (TAs) were trained to deliver a reading and language intervention to children in individual daily 40-min sessions. We used a waiting list control design, in which half the sample received the intervention immediately, whereas the remaining children received the treatment after a 20-week delay. Fifty-seven children with Down syndrome in mainstream primary schools in two UK locations (Yorkshire and Hampshire) were randomly allocated to intervention (40 weeks of intervention) and waiting control (20 weeks of intervention) groups. Assessments were conducted at three time points: pre-intervention, after 20 weeks of intervention, and after 40 weeks of intervention.
Results: After 20 weeks of intervention, the intervention group showed significantly greater progress than the waiting control group on measures of single word reading, letter-sound knowledge, phoneme blending and taught expressive vocabulary. Effects did not transfer to other skills (nonword reading, spelling, standardised expressive and receptive vocabulary, expressive information and grammar). After 40 weeks of intervention, the intervention group remained numerically ahead of the control group on most key outcome measures; but these differences were not significant. Children who were younger, attended more intervention sessions, and had better initial receptive language skills made greater progress during the course of the intervention.
Conclusions: A TA-delivered intervention produced improvements in the reading and language skills of children with Down syndrome. Gains were largest in skills directly taught with little evidence of generalization to skills not directly taught in the intervention.