Epilogue: Evaluating Language Intervention Approaches Contrasting Perspectives Clinical Forum
Clinical Forum  |   October 01, 1999
Epilogue: Evaluating Language Intervention Approaches
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • Nancy A. Creaghead
    University of Cincinnati, OH
  • Corresponding author: e-mail: nancy.creaghead@uc.edu
Article Information
Language Disorders
Clinical Forum   |   October 01, 1999
Epilogue: Evaluating Language Intervention Approaches
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, October 1999, Vol. 30, 415-416. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.3004.415
History: Received May 20, 1999 , Accepted June 30, 1999
 
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, October 1999, Vol. 30, 415-416. doi:10.1044/0161-1461.3004.415
History: Received May 20, 1999; Accepted June 30, 1999
The articles in this clinical forum have presented the views of two researchers/clinicians concerning five language intervention approaches that have stirred much interest, as well as questions and controversy concerning their effectiveness. This forum has not given an answer to the clinician who wants to know whether to select one of these approaches. Rather, the forum’s contributors have attempted to provide information and considerations for use in making a decision.
In the January 1999 issue of Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools (LSHSS),Kamhi (1999)  and Apel (1999)  discussed “Dual Perspectives on Choosing Treatment Approaches.” Kamhi argued that clinicians and researchers bring different perspectives to decisions regarding the selection of treatment approaches. He suggested that clinicians make decisions based on what works best for their clients, and that clinical decisionmaking cannot wait for definitive efficacy studies, which may never “prove” which treatment method is best. Apel, on the other hand, argued, like Hegde (1994), that clinicians and researchers are both scientists and, therefore, have the same goals: “to discover solutions to problems and…act…on those solutions” (Apel, 1999, p. 99). Apel suggested that, in order to work together, researchers and clinicians must agree on a definition of language, follow a common theory of language learning, and understand the roles that both groups play in planning intervention for children with language disorders. These three requirements must be met if we are to generate outcome and efficacy data to answer questions regarding which approaches constitute best practices.
First Page Preview
First page PDF preview
First page PDF preview ×
View Large
Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access