The Effects of a Sibling-involved Language Intervention in Children with Language Disorders

형제 참여 언어중재가 언어장애 아동의 언어능력에 미치는 효과

This study was aimed at clarifying the effects of sibling-involved .language intervention in children with language disorders. Ten subjects were selected and assigned into two groups (language intervention group with sibling-involvement, and language intervention without sibling-involvement). Group 1 consisted of 5 children with language disorders. Group 2 consisted of 5 children with language disorders without sibling-involvement. To investigate the language and communication ability, Picture Vocabulary Test and the subjects's spontaneous speech sample were analyzed. To compare pre-treatment with post-treatment between two the groups, repeated-measures ANOVA and t-test were used. The results were as follows; First, the language intervention with sibling-involvement was not effective compared to without sibling-involvement in improving the picture vocabulary ability of children with language disorders. There was a significant difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment in the picture vocabulary ability of the two .groups. However, there was no significant difference in the post-treatment between the two groups. Second, the language intervention with sibling-involvement was more effective compared to without sibling-involvement in improving the semantic aspects of language of children with language disorders. There was a significant difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment in the number of semantic relations between the two groups in that group 1 showed a higher improvement than group 2. Third, the language intervention with sibling involvement was more effective in improving pragmatic aspects of language of children with language disorders. There was a significant difference between pre-treatment and post-treatment in the number of communicative intentions of the two groups. And there was a significant difference in the post-treatment between the groups in that group 1 showed a higher improvement than group 2.