American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology Vol.19 3-21 February 2010. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2009/08-0075)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrowCustom Print
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 van Kleeck, A.
Right arrow Articles by Weitzman, E.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by van Kleeck, A.
Right arrow Articles by Weitzman, E.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Delicious   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

Clinical Focus

Should We Use Telegraphic or Grammatical Input in the Early Stages of Language Development With Children Who Have Language Impairments? A Meta-Analysis of the Research and Expert Opinion

Anne van Kleeck
Amy Louise Schwarz
University of Texas at Dallas

Marc Fey
University of Kansas Medical Center, Kansas City

Ann Kaiser
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN

Jon Miller
University of Wisconsin—Madison

Elaine Weitzman
The Hanen Centre, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Contact author: Anne van Kleeck, University of Texas at Dallas, School of Behavioral and Brain Sciences, Callier Center for Communication Disorders, 1966 Inwood Road, Dallas, TX 75235-7298. E-mail: annevk{at}utdallas.edu.

Purpose: In working with children with language impairments, some clinical scholars and clinicians advocate using input that is simplified to the point of being ungrammatical (telegraphic input), while others advocate simplified but grammatical input. This article considers 2 types of external evidence on this topic.

Method: First, a meta-analysis of relevant research, including intervention studies and processing studies, is reported. Next, 4 experts present their opinions.

Results: Children in the majority of the intervention studies showed no difference in language comprehension based on type of input, although 1 study with very few children favored telegraphic input for language production. In the processing studies, which measured immediate comprehension, children from clinical populations responded inconsistently when listening to the 2 types of input. Children who had typical language, however, favored grammatical input in their responses. Regarding the experts' opinions, 2 suggest that telegraphic input is sometimes warranted; 1, who previously indirectly promoted its occasional use, no longer believes it should be used; and 1 provides reasons why telegraphic input should not be used and may even be harmful.

Conclusions: Empirical findings and expert views are summarized as ways of informing parents of the weak evidence base regarding the best type of input.

Key Words: language disorders, treatment, early intervention


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Delicious Delicious   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?