Effect of different treatments in young children with language problems

Objective: Analysis of the relationship between treatment and improvement oil language scores in children with language problems. Design: Observational longitudinal Study. Materials and methods: 123 children between 2 and 5 years of age, diagnosed as having a language problem were followed for 1 year. By means of monthly questionnaires, the form of intervention received was recorded. Language abilities were measured at baseline and after 1 year. Mixed model analysis was used to determine the relationship between improvement and language scores. Results: During the year 119 parents returned the monthly questionnaires and four treatment groups were subsequently able to be categorized: language treatment (n=21, 18%), surgical hearing improvement (n = 16, 13%), language treatment and surgical hearing improvement (n = 42, 35%) and a three-combination group (language treatment, Surgical hearing improvement and developmental guidance, n = 40, 34%). For the four treatment groups there were no significant differences at baseline for the Language Comprehension Quotient (LCQ) (p = 0.07) and Sentence Development Quotient (SDQ) (p = 0.09). In all treatment groups the mean Sentence Development Quotient improved significantly (p = 0.001). The mean Language Comprehension Quotient did not improve in the Surgical hearing improvement group (p = 0.42), but improved significantly in the language treatment group, in the language treatment and surgical hearing improvement group and in the three-combination group (p = 0.002, 0.040, 0.001). From all included children 38 children (32%) moved from an inadequate to an adequate language score. Conclusion: All distinguished forms of treatment were effective. However, only for a proportion of the children this meant a clinical relevant improvement. For the improvement Of language comprehension targeted language therapy seems essential, as children without this (children receiving surgical hearing impairment) did not improve their LCQ. (c) 2009 Elsevier Ireland Ltd. All rights reserved