Language Strategies Key Features Assignment Name: Ashley Shetter

Author/ Research Participants Settings Implementer Independent Dependent Results Social Anythin
Citation Question s Variable Variable Validity/Usabil g
ity addition
(intervention) al you
would
like to
add
PMT 1. Does Children: PMT session 3 of weekly  EA Child Variables - Increase Determined the All
RE/PMT 51children took place in sessions with  Verbal frequenc efficacy of children
Fey, M. significantly ages 24 to 33 child’s home primary 1.Child’s rate of PMT and were
prompt y of
E., increase rates months. Mild and in day care clinician and imperatives RE/PMT over receiving
Warren, s child-
of imperative, to moderate facilities 4 days 1 session by  Gestur (requesting): initiated the short tem some
S. F.,
Brady, declarative mental a week for 20 secondary child displayed comment form of
al
N., and overall retardation, minutes clinician. neutral or , initiated commun
prompt
Finestack communicativ MDIs below positive affect 89.6% ity based
s requests
, L. H., e acts 70, no autism -in all the -All had while agreement intervent
and
Bredin- compared to diagnosis, no segments the master’s communicating between ion
Oja, S. the control more than 10 same toys and degree in the desire for the lexical transcribers and
L., group words or communication SLP and help (Need to get adult to perform density 83.9% for the
Fairchild, signs, vision temptation certificate of book from some act or PCX
M., 2. Does and hearing devices were clinical library on service
Sokol, S.,
RE/PMT lead normal, id. used competence Monday)
& Yoder,
P. J. to increases in in SLP from 2.Childs rate of any
parental use of - Seated ASHA declarative acts disagreements
verbal Parents: 50 Also used (comments): were discussed
in chair
responses, that mothers, 1 Hanen It takes non-imitated, and the primary
to two to talk
recode the father, prevent Two coders- self initiated or coder made the
child’s generally well from graduate responsive final decision
intended educated getting assistants intentional acts
meanings? up aimed to focus
adults attention
- 1st given
3. Does Was showing or share
develop
Re/PMT videos of positive/neutral
reduce mentall them doing it affect about the
parental y object or event
stress? appropri - Go back
ate toys to 3.Total rate of
- 2nd warren intentional acts:
 snack 2006 for child’s
the combination of
independ either a
ent vocalization or
variables gesture with gaze
alternation
PMT between the
implemented object or event
by 4 different and the adult’s
clinicians face

Parent
variables:
% of Child acts
during the
PCX: to evaluate
the effects of
intervention on
parent behavior
PMT Are parents Mom and Family’s Mom Following the Video recording Increased Two coders Tried to
with cognitive Julie 12mos. living room (implemented child’s lead: to code behavior descriptive with 95% do
Rebecca impairments lower SES in a trailer strategies Descriptive talk talk reliability written
B. able to status and park, play with (parent Frequency of between material
McCathr implement educational time with daughter), narration), child intention Increase but
en PMT background, high interest Lead Author linguistic communcication linguistic Modified the mother
strategies with cognitive toys with ph.d mapping attempt mapping implementation wasn’t
toys and disabilities, (completing (parent labeling Increased based off the intereste
materials in English training with child’s imitation parent’s d
home speaking the communication preferences
implementer) attempts), Julies (good patient
physical intentional satisfactions)
Would the Parent (parents communicati
mothers use of teaching copying) and on increased
the strategies sequence: vocal
affect the 1)refreshers imitations
childs 2) mom id (parent copy
communicatio motivating child sounds)
n toy Environmenta
3) toy use in l
context, arrangements:
4) model place desired
5) coach material away
 (respond from childs
enthuse. reach and toys
When that need
implements, parents support
reminders for to operate
parent missed Models: parent
fidelity model
conversational
gestures and
vocalizations
Prompts:
parent ask child
to complete
behavior

-
PMT 1) What is the 6 children Child’s natural Baseline: - Prompts: - Rate of child - Increase 24 RAs
effect of PMT with autism 5- home adult verbal imitated d the Measured by
Jessica on the child’s 8 years of age environment, interacted comparing the
(what do communicati rates of
H. development - Spoke play routines naturally 5-point Liker
Franco, you want) on acts initiation
of sustained English suggested by with no or gestural - Number of of type scale
Barbara
L. Davis intentional - Lack of parents prompting or cue (opens Acts to intention rating between
& John. L communicatio functional cueing and raises maintain al baseline and
Davis n within a play communic -social play intervention for
hand social communi
routine ation routines Intervention: both social-
quizzically interaction cation
- Normal Adult created emotional and
2) What is the a situation when child - The rate practical
vision, attends to of overall
effect of PMT where the aspects of
hearing a toy intention
on the child’s child was intervention
initiation of and motor likely to nearby) al
intention skills communicate - Models: communi -blind and
communicatio Receptive gestural cation random
n score between Videos coded (points to a attempts rotation.
5- by graduate bottle of increase
12monthsand research bubbles on and was - Interventio
expressive assessment n would be
the shelf) maintain
score between
or vocal ed more
5-9months
(models socially
the sound valid if the
“m” while questions
were rated
 waving a higher for
blanket interventio
over the n and lower
child’s for
head) baseline.
- Natural - T test
consequen revealed
ces: statistical
- compliance significance
(delivers a for all 7
cup that items
the child examine in
indicated social
by pointing validity
to it)
- imitation
(echo’s the
sound “b”
that the
child made
during
vocal play),
- Recast
(says “ball”
when the
child points
to it)
MT Evaluating the 6 preschool- Clinc- Initial Mothers 1) Modeling- Child: MLU, Increases in 1st and 2nd
aquistition aged boys and training of 4 implementing present total # of words MLU for all observer
(Alpert generalization their mother techniques in model produced, novel children, independently
and and had been child’s Parent related to words produced increase in recorded time
Kaiser, maintenance enrolled in preschool in training by interest or total # of delays and
1992) of four milieu university room upstairs trainer focus - words request/comma
language affiliated from classroom, produced and nds during in
Cathy L. training preschool for contained a -correct: novel words vivo
Alpert procedures by children with table, several praise, verbal produced, observations.
and Anna mothers of language chairs and Mothers: % expansion, Increased F 1st used
P. Kaiser preschoolers delays, training process of correct use access to requesting stopwatch to
with language expressive of technique, material note minute
impairments delays of at Materials: % of correct -incorrect: - Increase intervals.
least 10 discussion guide use and total corrective in Following
months on techniques, # of verbal model frequenc session 2nd
parent handout, plus non- y and % coded
parents: videotapes verbal child Corrective of audiotape, then
low to showing requests model correct coded by 1st,
medium experimenter response: use compared
income levels, using -correct: techniqu sheets point by
at least a techniques. praise, point
e and
highschool expansion and
generaliz
degree, Home-15 home access to 42 reliability
homemarkers based play materials ation checks, mean
intervention, in -incorrect: interobserver
children: ages family living corrective agreement
35-51mos, room with childs feedback and scores for
severe toys or those access to mother
articulation in brought by material behaviors 86-
children trainer, no tv. 91%, with a
(A,B,D,E), 2) Time delay: total range of
delayed Generalization- Id when child 67-100%.
receptive household likely to need
language chores (child materials or Mean
(B,D,F) nearby playing assistance, agreement for
MLU below with toys) and present delay child behaviors
age-level(all), while tv was on 75-80% and
behavioral (mother and -correct: total range 51-
problems(B,F) child sitting in immediate 97%
, moderate to front of tv and praise, verbal
severe sensori- toys available expansion and mean for child
neural hearing materials or requests 75-
loss(D), assistance 88% and total
Adopted from incorrect: range 50-100%
Thailand(E) a)second time
delay means for
b)mand-model scoring of
c)model correct/incorrec
t use of milieu
2) Mand teaching
model- procedures
present were 95% and
mand 99% across
related to mothers and
focus or total range 73-
 interest 100%

-correct: verbatim
praise, transcripts off
expansion and audiotapes
access to 1st transcribed
material independently
incorrect: of 2nd
second mand or -mean for
model mother
utterances were
Corrective 88-96%
model/mand child utterances
response: 83-95%
correct: praise, morphemes
expansion and produced by
access child 73 and
Incorrect: 85%
follow model
procedure steps

3) Incidental
teaching-
Id.
occasions
when
verbal or
nonverball
y
requesting
materials
or
assistance,
teaching
intelligibilit
y,
complexity,
or
elaborative
language/c
ommunica
 tion skills

1)model
procedures
(new or
difficult forms
or structures
and
intelligibility)
2)mand-model
(complexity
and
conversational)
3)time delay
(initiate
commutative
behaviors)

- mothers
encourage
d to use
techniques
incidentally
throughout
the day,
naturally
working on
language
skills
MT -What is the Three Classroom, Teachers Model- present EA: all 3 -interobserver
effect of university sitting on floor taught words model related Child measures: increased agreement
(Kaiser, training preschool or around small or phrases to child focus -Total use of Frequency of
Ostrosky teachers to use teachers for table in chairs, using the or interest, targets strategies (3x Teachers:
and environmental children with materials appropriate -correct: child -Spontaneous use per min) -EA 88%
Alpert, arrangement moderate to included non vocal responses of targets And -MT 80%
1993) strategies severe puzzles, dolls, mode for the receive -Total child increased the
-What is the disabilities balls, blocks and child in the immediate communicative # of different Child behaviors
Ann P. effect of ( female, preferred context of a praise, response strategies 81%
Kaiser, subsequently undergraduate activities music, play activity expansion and used, this
Michaele training degree in drums, physical access to was
ne M. teachers to use Special Ed., play, teachers Trainer: 3rd material maintained
Ostrosky, milieu fewer than 3 sat close to the author -Incorrect is during MT
Cathy L. teaching in years children making EA: taught 7 followed by phase of
Alpert conjunction experience, no frequent visual environmenta corrective testing, all
with EA prior training and physical l strategies to model three
-Do these in EA or MT contact with teacher (no generalized
effect each child. training Response to their use
generalize to A: training in specific corrective across other
other setting sign Teacher training language model children and
and other C and C: very in the classroom teaching settings.
children using little procedure or correct: praise, Remained
augmented how to expansion and stable.
communicatio 3 Target Videotaped and integrate in access
n system children: coded daily environmenta -incorrect: MT: All 3
-What effects 22-45 months, l strategies), feedback and demonstrate
do teacher significant Teacher: -Mean provided access correct use
implementatio cognitive and number of descriptive and increased
n of language environmental feedback. Time delay- id frequency,
environmental delays, strategies used when child is maintained
arrangement communicativ (per minute) MT: taught likely to need during
and milieu e functioning -Number of for MT , materials or maintenance
teaching have 2 years below different short lecture, assistance, probing and
on the target age environmental then watched present delay were able to
children’s use B: severe strategies used video taped -correct: praise, generalize
of physical during training of expansion and across
communicatio disabilities -Number of MT experienced material/assista children and
n 3 used correct, MT nce settings.
generalization -total correct interactions, -incorrect:
children: 29 to MT attempts verbal and 1)second time
46 months, during training, graphic delay then
significant -generalization feedback mand-model
cognitive and and maintenance (or model if
language sessions incorrect
delays , 2 response to
years below second delay),
communicativ 2)mand-model
e functioning procedure,3)
level model
G2: sever procedure
physical
disabilities Mand model-
present mand
related to focus
or interest
-correct: praise,
expansion and
access to
material
incorrect:
second mand or
model

Corrective
mand/model
response

Correct: praise,
expansion and
access
Incorrect:
follow model
procedure steps

Incidental
teaching= id
occasions when
verbal or
nonverbally
requesting
materials or
assistance,
teaching
intelligibility,
complexity, or
elaborative
language/com
munication
skills
1)model
procedures
(new or
difficult forms
or structures
and
intelligibility)
2)mand-model
( complexity
and
conversational)
3)time delay
(initiate
communiticave
behaviors)

EA:
 Materials
of interest-
make
materials
that are of
interest of
child
available
 Within
view out of
reach –
place some
materials
within
view and
out of
reach of
child
 Assistance-
provide
materials
the child
will need
assistance
to operate
 Adequate
portions-
small
portions so
child
requests for
additional
 materials
 Sabotage-
withhold
materials
the child
need to
follow
directions
or
complete a
task
 Protest- do
something
the child
would not
want you to
do
 Silly
situations-
violate the
child’s
expectation
s through
the creation
of a
situation

***Used
milieu
teaching in
conjunction
with the 7
EA
strategies.
Teacher
used EA to
facilitate
interest for
the child
and then
use MT to
 prompt the
language in
regards to
the interest.
4)
MT What are the Three sibling Training and Siblings: Model- Child: Siblings Observers
effects on dyads, older observations in 1.Freuqncy demonstration 1.Frequency of consistently trained to 80%
siblings typically family homes, of teaching of a verbal total child used teaching reliability of
Terry B. teaching developing audiotaped. episodes response by the utterances episodes, coding and
Hancock behavior after female sibling 2.percent sibling trainer 2.frequency of consequate verbatim
and Ann they are taught (8-12yrs) and Baseline consequences targets used positively at recording
P. Kaiser to model and a preschool observations of child Mand- an spontaneously least 80% of procedures
mand-model age male 15mins, in room target verbal imperative 3.frequency of brothers
with their (target child – selected by responses unfinished total use of targeted Transcribed
younger 4.5 to 6 yrs) children. 3.% of verbalization or targets language independently
sibling Visitors limited acknowledge question that responses by two different
experiences a Target and children ment of requires a turn taking ratio observers
language children had asked to remain child’s verbal verbal response All became
delay. expressive in chosen room. initiations, by the child even more Behavior-by-
language Play session 4. frequency responsive to behaviors
What are the delays of at included of verbal comparison of
effects of least 21 mos. families toys instructions behavior data sheets
sibling use of Public or Only sibling and for nonverbal 4 sessions initiated by made.
milieu privately target child behaviors discussing MT their
teaching on funded EI present for play 5.frequency techniques brothers, Assessed for at
the language programs, session of question which were to immediate least 25% of the
behaviors of some Generalization that require a be used decrease in sessions in each
the younger productive sessions 10mins yes or no spontaneously instructions condition for all
children language, in kitchen answer only throughout play and dyads
A: cerebral during afternoon from the sessions decreasing
Will palsy snack target child trend in Reliability
intervention B: Dev. Delay yes/no sessions once
result in of unknown questions during each
generalized origin Trainer phase of study
effects C: Williams - Child: (12 total)
Syndrome 2 modest
Will observed independent increase Inter-observer
effects on observation in agreement 90%
siblings coders spontane sibling
maintain over ous use utterances and
time of targets 86% target
child utterances
and total
 child
utteranc
es, each
target
child
learned
his
language
targets
and met
criterion
Visual 1.How the Intervention: -Mothers sat in coders were -Frequency of -significantly
Impairme interaction front of the table trained by each speech act more
nt between VIMs Seven with their child last author (includes physical
and their Visually in a high-chair who were vocalizations and contact
Chiesa, sighted impaired positioned at a trained FACS babblings) between
Galati, children is mothers and right angle to users � Single VIMs and
Schmidt different from the first born the mother speech child
that of sighted child ages acts
dyads 6months- 3 -some toys defined -no
years provided by differences in
2. Does the audible the frequency
mother’s - Recruited pauses of verbal
visual through productions ,
between
impairment Italian however the
vocaliza
influence the Union of duration of
child’s tions or the verbal
Blind verbaliza
expressive Control group: productions
development tions longer for
- Seven -Frequency of
sighted VIMs
each contact children
mother between body
dyads parts of the two
interaction
All dyads partners
lived in
household
with father,
none in
nursery school
Visual 1.Would there Family of Naturalistic play Parent Parent measures: The father
Impairme be three: Mother session in home implemented produced a Two coders
nt observational (32), Father - Number of larger were checked
differences in (29) and Materials: four -Mother- words amount of for inter-coder
Joanne the nature of Female child hand puppets, child dyad produced words in each reliability
Lee, mathematical (15months) four oversized and father- (nouns, verbs, of the five
Donna play between foam dice, toy child dyads colors, number categories
Kotsopou the parent- Child: truck, three and quantity) compared to
los, child dyads? participated in backpacks, Coders: the the mother
carly- Little shape sorter and third author Gesture:
anne 2.What are the Counters shapes, 40 and trained - Frequency of -both
stordy potential program, transportation research declarative produced
learning understands toys and animal assistant pointing more non-
implications English and toys, 68 foam (pointing to mathematical
of those polish words blocks in Third author direct attention ly prevalent
differences for various shapes, modeled toward an object input
children of Parents: two pop up various of interest in JA
parents who Completed 4 books, plastic activites for episodes in - The
are visually years of shapes the mother which the dyad mother
impaired? University and assisted engages for at produced
education (nothing had with least 3s) zero
Mother: Loss braille on it) mathematical - Frequency of instances
vision by age play to of
imperative
of 1), speaks ensure safety declarati
pointing
polish and of the child
English (pointing to ve
direct behavior pointing
Father: or align attention
to the same - The child
Sighted,
English object in JA produced
episodes which more
Only mother last at least 3s) declarati
and child - Frequency of ve
participated in touching pointing
the program with her
piece, both father
parents Child measures:
than with
participated in Gesture:
her
natural play - Frequency of
mother
declarative
pointing
- The child
(Child tries to
produced
direct adult
attention to an less
imperativ
 object or activity e
of interest) pointing
- Frequency of gesture
imperative with
pointing mother
(child seeks adult than
help in obtaining father
a desired object
or activity) - Visually
Frequency of impaired
touching caregiver
s used
touching
gesturing
rather
than
pointing
gesture
to
interact
with
child.

- Childs
touching
gesture
mirrored
those of
her play
partner

Independent variables:
-prompting: parent ask child to complete behavior (verbal or gestural cues)
- What do you want
-modeling: parent model conversational gestures and vocalizations
What it is: Parent says moo when the child points to the cow
-environment arrangement: place desired material away from child’s reach and toys that need parents support to operate
 -What it is: Putting bubbles on a shelf that the child cannot reach
*parent positioning themselves so they are face to face with the child
- follow child’s lead: Descriptive talk (parent narration), linguistic mapping (parent labeling child’s communication attempts), physical
(parents copying) and vocal imitations (parent copy child sounds)
- Time Delay: nonverbal or verbal prompts that functions as an interruption of an ongoing turn-taking routine, Child initatites a request in
order to continue the routine
What it is: The adult holds her hands away from the child till the child looks and then begins to tickle again.
 “Show me” or “what”

Dependent variables:
Child variables:

-Child’s rate of declaratives: Child-imitated communication acts that prompt the caregiver to attend to the object or event without trying to
get the adult to perform an action. Purpose is to share affect or experience.
- What it is: While reading the book, child points to dinosaur and vocalizes
- what it is not: child gestures or vocalizes for parent to perform an action
ex. Child reaches up at caregiver so they can be picked up
-Child’s rate of imperatives = Unprompted child-initiated communication acts that serve the purpose of requesting an object, action or
event
- what it is: Child reaches for object and vocalizes
-what it isn’t: child says baba

- total rate of intentional acts

Parent variables:
o % of child communication acts during intervention
o Number of words produced
 What it is: nouns, colors, verbs, quantity
 What it is not: vocalizations (ex. Ba, ma, da)

References
Fey, M. E., Warren, S. F., Brady, N., Finestack, L. H., Bredin-Oja, S. L., Fairchild, M., Sokol, S., & Yoder, P. J. (2006). Early Effects of

Responsivity Education/Prelinguistic Milieu Teaching for Children with Developmental Delays and Their Parents. Journal of

Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49(3), 526–547

Yoder, P. J., & Warren, S. F. (2002). Effects of prelinguistic milieu teaching and parent responsivity education on dyads involving children with

intellectual disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1158–1174.

McCathren, R. B. (2010, July 31). Case Study: Parent-Implemented Prelinguistic Milieu Teaching with a High Risk Dyad. Retrieved from

https://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ893070

Franco, J. H., Davis, B. L., & Davis, J. L. (2013). Increasing social interaction using prelinguistic milieu teaching with nonverbal school-age children

with autism. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 22(3), 489–502. https://doi-org.proxy.library.kent.edu/10.1044/1058-

0360(2012/10-0103)

Kaiser, A. P., Ostrosky, M. M., & Alpert, C. L. (1993). Training Teachers to Use Environmental Arrangement and Milieu Teaching with Nonvocal

Preschool Children. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 18(3),188199. https://doi.org/10.1177/15407

9699301800305

ALPERT, C. L., & KAISER, A. P. (1992). Training parents as milieu language teachers. Journal of Early Intervention, 16(1), 31–

52. https://doi.org/10.1177/105381519201600104
Lee, J., Kotsopoulos, D., & Stordy, C.-A. (2012). Mathematically-Relevant Input during Play of a Caregiver with a Visual Impairment and Her

Toddler. International Journal of Early Childhood, 44(1), 71–90

Hancock, T. B., & Kaiser, A. P. (1996). Siblings’ Use of Milieu Teaching at Home. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 16(2), 168–

190. https://doi.org/10.1177/027112149601600204

Articles to reference:

Granpeesheh, D., Dixon, D. R., Tarbox, J., Kaplan, A. M., & Wilke, A. E. (2009). The effects of age and treatment intensity
on behavioral intervention outcomes for children with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum
Disorders, 3, 1014–1022
McCathren, R. B. (2000). Teacher-implemented prelinguistic communication intervention. Focus on Autism and Other
Developmental Disabilities, 15, 21–29.

Mundy, P., & Willoughby, J. (1998). Nonverbal communication, affect, and socio-emotional development. In A. M.
Wetherby, S. F. Warren, J. Reichle, & M. E. Fey (Eds.), Communication and language intervention series: Volume 7.
Transitions in prelinguistic communication (pp. 111–133). Baltimore, MD: Brookes

(ONLINE ONLY) Warren, S. F., Yoder, P. J., Gazdag, G. E., Kim, K., & Jones, H. A. (1993). Facilitating prelinguistic
communication skills in young children with developmental delay. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 36, 83–97.

 Yoder, P. J., & Stone, W. L. (2006a). A randomized comparison of the effect of two prelinguistic communication
intervention on the acquisition of spoken communication in preschoolers with ASD. Journal of Speech, Language,
and Hearing Research, 49, 698–711.

Yoder, P. J., & Warren, S. F. (2001b). Relative treatment effects of two prelinguistic communication interventions on
language development in toddlers with developmental delays vary by maternal characteristics.  Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing Research, 44, 224–237.

Yoder, P. J., Warren, S. F., & Hull, L. (1995). Predicting children’s response to prelinguistic communication
intervention. Journal of Early Intervention, 19, 74–84.

Chiesa, S., Galati, D., & Schmidt, S. (2015). Communicative interactions between visually impaired mothers and their sighted children: analysis of gaze, facial
expressions, voice and physical contacts. Child: Care, Health & Development, 41(6), 1040–1046. https://doi.org/10.1111/cch.12274

Ganea, N., Hudry, K., Vernetti, A., Tucker, L., Charman, T., Johnson, M. H., & Senju, A. (2018). Development of Adaptive Communication Skills in Infants of Blind
Parents. Developmental Psychology, 54(12), 2265–2273.