Table 2.

Summary of reviewed studies – story-based vocabulary intervention approaches.

Authors, year, country	Design	Participants	Intervention	Dosage	Delivery	Outcome measure	Results	Follow-up	JBI quality rating*
Nash and Donaldson (2005), UK	Non-randomized alternating treatment crossover design with 1-week washout	13 males & 3 females with existing diagnosis of SLI (age 5; 5–9; 0)	Exposure to spoken stories + Corresponding picture books Versus Explicit semantic approach	Two 20–30 min sessions over 2 consecutive days for each learning context Total: 40–60 min 8 target words per child, 4 per approach, multiple presentations	Provider: University SLT Mode: Explicit teaching: Face-to-face individual sessions with SLT Incidental: Playing of pre-recorded story by SLT Location: Mostly room in mainstream school	Within group comparison of gain between first and second therapy session, and between group comparison of final scores, using a range of researcher-created target-word tests to assess expressive & receptive vocabulary. 1. Picture naming test of target words (expressive vocabulary) 2. Target word definition test (expressive vocabulary) 3. Spoken word to picture matching – match target word to 1 of 4 pictures (receptive vocabulary) 4. Spoken word recognition test – correct pronunciation of target word from choice of 4 (receptive vocabulary) 5. Meaning recognition test – Y/N allocation to given category & attribute (receptive vocabulary)	Within group 1. Picture naming test • Significant gain with story exposure (p < 0.01) • Significant gain with semantic therapy (p < 0.01) 2. Word definition test • Significant gain with story exposure (p < 0.05) • Significant gain with semantic therapy (p < 0.01) 3. Spoken word to picture matching • No significant change with story exposure • Significant gain with semantic therapy (p < 0.01) 4. Spoken word recognition. • Significant gain with story exposure (p < 0.001) • Significant gain with semantic therapy (p < 0.01) 5. Meaning recognition • Significant gain with story exposure (p < 0.05) • No significant change with semantic therapy Between group Overall gain from semantic therapy significantly greater than story exposure for the Word Definition test (p < 0.05) and the Meaning Recognition test (p < 0.05). All other between group comparisons were non-significant Effect sizes not reported. No order effect analysis	Not measured	Medium quality
Smeets et al. (2014), Study 1, Netherlands	Randomized alternating treatment crossover design with no washout	24 males & 5 females with existing diagnosis of SLI (age 5; 0–6; 8)	Exposure to narrated e-stories with pictures (no background sound) versus videos (with background sounds)	Each approach presented across 8 sessions over 4 weeks in random order. Session lengths unknown 28 target words, 14 per approach, multiple presentations	Provider: Academics in psychology Mode: Individual sessions in Dutch using headphones & television screen Location: Room in specialist school	Between group comparison of pre-post gains using a researcher-created sentence completion test of target words to assess expressive vocabulary	•Target-word gain significantly greater for picture e-books than with video e-books (p < 0.01, d = 0.48, medium effect) •Target-word gain significantly greater for e-books (picture & video condition combined) than control words (p < 0.001, d = 1.54, large effect)	Not measured	Medium quality
Smeets et al. (2014), Study 2, Netherlands	Randomized alternating treatment crossover design with no washout	13 males & 10 females with existing diagnosis of SLI (age 5; 0–7; 6)	Exposure to narrated e-storybooks with picture/video with/without background sounds	Each approach presented across 16 sessions over 8 weeks in random order. Session lengths unknown 72 target words, 18 per approach, multiple presentations	Provider: Academics in psychology Mode: Individual sessions in Dutch using headphones & television screen Location: Room in specialist school	Between group comparison of pre-post gains using a researcher-created sentence completion test of target words to assess expressive vocabulary	•No significant differences in target-word scores found between the intervention groups •A significant correlation was found between increased language severity and negative influence of background sound (p < 0.05, d = 0.43, medium effect)	Not measured	Medium quality

^*Based on JBI quality appraisal rating (see Appendix A).

SLI, Specific Language Impairment.