Table 3.
Summary of reviewed studies – story-based with semantic and/or phonological vocabulary intervention approaches.
| Authors, year, country | Design | Participants | Intervention | Dosage | Delivery | Outcome measures | Results | Follow-up | JBI quality rating* |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marks and Stokes (2010), UK | Pre-post comparison | 1 male with LI (aged 8; 1) | Story read to child + semantic approach No other intervention accessed | 8 × 50–60 min sessions, over 3 weeks. Total: 400–480 min/6 h 40 min–8 h 30 target words across 4 stories, multiple presentations |
Provider: Healthcare SLT Mode: Face-to-face individual sessions in English Location: Room in mainstream school | Within group, pre-post comparison using two researcher-created tests of target words to assess vocabulary: 1. Picture naming test of target words (expressive vocabulary) 2. Spoken word to picture matching (receptive vocabulary) |
1. Picture naming test •Significant gain with target words (p < 0.001) •No significant changes with control words 2. Spoken word to picture matching •Significant gain with target words (p = 0.016) •No significant changes with control words Effect sizes not reported | Loss in gains at 8-month follow up | Medium quality |
| Steele et al. (2013), US | Randomized alternating treatment crossover design with no washout in-between | 10 males & 2 females with existing diagnosis of LI (Mean age 10; 3, SD: 9.32 months) | Child-read story + Phonological and/or semantic approach | One session per condition, length and frequency unknown 15 target words per child, 5 per condition, multiple presentations | Provider: University SLT & SLT students Mode: Face-to-face individual sessions in English Location: Room in mainstream school | Within group, pre-post comparison using a researcher-created target-word definition test to assess expressive vocabulary | •Significantly greater target-word gain for story + phonological + semantic therapy (combined) compared to the control condition (p = 0.028) •Significantly greater target-word gain for story + semantic therapy compared to the control condition (p = 0.002) •No significant difference between story + phonological therapy compared to the control condition Effect sizes not reported. No order effect analysis | Not measured | Medium quality |
| Lowman and Dressler (2016), US | Randomized alternating treatment crossover design with no washout time in-between | 18 children with existing diagnosis of SLI (age 10; 0–11; 11, gender unknown) | Child-read storybooks + Phonological, semantic & syntactic word cues via an iPod Versus Story reading Ongoing language support continued for both conditions (specifics unclear) | Eight 15-min video viewing sessions, over 4 weeks (2 sessions a week) Total: 120 min/2 h Plus, reading time (not measured) 24 target words, 12 per condition, multiple presentations |
Provider: Self-directed viewing of iPods/book reading with University-affiliated SLT/SLT students supporting as required Mode: Technology vs book Location: Room in mainstream school | Between group comparison of pre-post gains using a range of researcher-created target-word tests of expressive & receptive vocabulary 1. Word definition test (expressive vocabulary) 2. Semantic recognition test (receptive vocabulary) 3. Definition selection test (receptive vocabulary) 4. Sentence generation test (expressive syntax) 5. Syntactic recognition test (receptive syntax) |
1. Word definition test Significantly greater target-word gain for combined therapy compared to story-reading alone (p < 0.05, f2 = 0.13, small effect) 2. Semantic recognition test Significantly greater target-word gain for combined therapy compared to story-reading alone (p < 0.01, f2 = 0.11, small effect) 3. Definition selection test Significantly greater target-word gain for combined therapy compared to story-reading alone (p < 0.01, f2 = 0.46, large effect) 4. Sentence generation test Significantly greater target-word gain for combined therapy compared to story-reading alone (p < 0.05, f2 = 0.17, medium effect) 5. Syntactic recognition test Significantly greater target-word gain for combined therapy compared to story-reading alone (p < 0.05, f2 = 0.20, medium effect) No significant order effects |
Not measured | Medium quality |
| Storkel et al. (2019), US | Randomized alternating treatment crossover design with 2–3 weeks in between to measure learning retention | 21 males & 13 females diagnosed with DLD as part of the study (age: 5; 0–6 ;2) | Story read to child + Explicit semantic approach | Dosage to achieve 36 target-word exposures varied by no. of therapy sessions per word (4, 6, 9) & word exposures per session (9, 6, 4). Total: 160–299 min 60 target words, 10 per approach, multiple presentations |
Provider: University SLT & SLT students Mode: Face-to-face individual sessions in English Location: Mostly room in mainstream school | Within and between group, pre-post comparison using a researcher-created target-word definition test to assess expressive vocabulary | Within group Significant target-word gain from all dosage-delivery variations: •Variation 1: p = 0.002 •Variation 2: p < 0.0001 Between group No significant difference in scores between dosage delivery variations Effect sizes not reported |
Approx. 60% loss in gains at 1-week follow up rising to 70% at 3-week follow up | High quality |
*Based on JBI quality appraisal rating (see Appendix A).
LI, Language Impairment; SLI, Specific Language Impairment; DLD, Developmental Language Disorder.