↓ Skip to main content

Speech and language therapy interventions for children with primary speech and language delay or disorder

Overview of attention for article published in Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (94th percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (76th percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
2 policy sources
twitter
11 tweeters
facebook
2 Facebook pages
wikipedia
1 Wikipedia page

Citations

dimensions_citation
247 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
415 Mendeley
citeulike
3 CiteULike
connotea
1 Connotea
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Speech and language therapy interventions for children with primary speech and language delay or disorder
Published in
Cochrane database of systematic reviews, July 2003
DOI 10.1002/14651858.cd004110
Pubmed ID
Authors

James Law, Zoe Garrett, Chad Nye

Abstract

It is thought that approximately 6% of children have speech and language difficulties of which the majority will not have any other significant developmental difficulties. Whilst most children's difficulties resolve, children whose difficulties persist into primary school may have long-term problems concerning literacy, socialisation, behaviour and school attainment. To examine the effectiveness of speech and language interventions for children with primary speech and language delay/disorder. The following databases were searched: The Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (Cochrane Library, CENTRAL: 2002/3), CINAHL (1982 - July 2002), EMBASE (1980 - Sept Week 4 2002), ERIC (1965 - 2002), MEDLINE (1966 - Sept Week 3 2002), PsycINFO (1872 - 2002/10 Week 2), The National Research Register (2002/3). In addition to this references were taken from reviews of the literature and reference lists from articles. The review considered randomised controlled trials of speech and language therapy interventions for children or adolescents with primary speech and language delay/disorder. Titles and abstracts were identified and assessed for relevance, before the full text version was obtained of all potentially relevant articles. The data were categorised depending on the nature of the control group and considered in terms of the effects of intervention on expressive and receptive phonology, syntax and vocabulary. The outcomes used in the analysis were dependent on the focus of the study with only the primary effects of therapy being considered in this review. The results of twenty-five studies were used in the meta-analysis. The results suggest that speech and language therapy is effective for children with phonological (SMD=0.44, 95%CI: 0.01,0.86) or vocabulary difficulties (SMD=0.89, 95%CI: 0.21,1.56), but that there is less evidence that interventions are effective for children with receptive difficulties (SMD=-0.04, 95%CI: -0.64,0.56). Mixed findings were found concerning the effectiveness of expressive syntax interventions (n=233; SMD=1.02, 95%CI: 0.04-2.01). No significant differences were shown between clinician administered intervention and intervention implemented by trained parents, and studies did not show a difference between the effects of group and individual interventions (SMD=0.01, 95%CI: -0.26,1.17). The use of normal language peers in therapy was shown to have a positive effect on therapy outcome (SMD=2.29, 95%CI: 1.11,3.48). The review shows that overall there is a positive effect of speech and language therapy interventions for children with expressive phonological and expressive vocabulary difficulties. The evidence for expressive syntax difficulties is more mixed, and there is a need for further research to investigate intervention for receptive language difficulties. There is a large degree of heterogeneity in the results, and the sources of this need to be investigated.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 11 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 415 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 8 2%
South Africa 2 <1%
Australia 1 <1%
France 1 <1%
Portugal 1 <1%
Spain 1 <1%
India 1 <1%
United States 1 <1%
Hong Kong 1 <1%
Other 1 <1%
Unknown 397 96%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 106 26%
Student > Bachelor 79 19%
Researcher 40 10%
Student > Ph. D. Student 38 9%
Student > Postgraduate 31 7%
Other 121 29%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 95 23%
Linguistics 72 17%
Social Sciences 61 15%
Psychology 57 14%
Nursing and Health Professions 46 11%
Other 84 20%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 19. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 January 2019.
All research outputs
#793,749
of 13,177,477 outputs
Outputs from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#2,568
of 10,508 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#5,870
of 108,155 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cochrane database of systematic reviews
#20
of 86 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 13,177,477 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 10,508 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 108,155 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 94% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 86 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 76% of its contemporaries.