Caregiver-Implemented Communication Interventions for Children Identified as Having Language Impairment 0 Through 48 Months of Age: A Scoping Review

Reprint permission request

Author(s)

Lizbeth H Finestack, Marianne Elmquist, Kirstin E Kuchler, Andrea L Ford, Betul Cakir Dilek, Amy L Riegelman, Sarah Jane Brown, Scott E Marsalis

Web

Cost:

Free

Description

Purpose: Caregiver-implemented interventions are frequently used to support the early communication of young children with language impairment. Although there are numerous studies and meta-analyses supporting their use, there is a need to better understand the intervention approaches and identify potential gaps in the research base. With that premise, we conducted a scoping review to synthesize existing data with an end goal of informing future research directions.

Method: We identified relevant studies by comprehensively searching four databases. After deduplication, we screened 5,703 studies. We required included studies (N = 59) to evaluate caregiver-implemented communication interventions and include at least one caregiver communication outcome measure. We extracted information related to the (a) study, child, and caregiver characteristics; (b) intervention components (e.g., strategies taught, delivery method and format, and dosage); and (c) caregiver and child outcome measures (e.g., type, quality, and level of evidence).

Results: We synthesized results by age group of the child participants. There were no studies with children in the prenatal through 11-month-old age range identified in our review that yielded a caregiver language outcome measure with promising or compelling evidence. For the 12- through 23-month group, there were seven studies, which included eight communication intervention groups; for the 24- through 35-month group, there were 21 studies, which included 26 intervention groups; and for the 36- through 48-month group, there were 21 studies, which included 23 intervention groups. Across studies and age groups, there was considerable variability in the reporting of study characteristics, intervention approaches, and outcome measures.

Conclusion: Our scoping review highlights important research gaps and inconsistencies in study reporting that should be addressed in future investigations.

Suggested Citation

Details

Date

2022 

Type

Peer-Reviewed Article 

Edition

Volume 65, Number 8

Publisher

American Speech-Language-Hearing Association