A written language intervention for at-risk second grade students: a randomized controlled trial of the process assessment of the learner lesson plans in a tier 2 response-to-intervention (RtI) model.

In a randomized controlled trial, 205 students were followed from grades 1 to 3 with a focus on changes in their writing trajectories following an evidence-based intervention during the spring of second grade. Students were identified as being at-risk (n=138), and then randomized into treatment (n=68) versus business-as-usual conditions (n=70). A typical group also was included (n=67). The writing intervention comprised Lesson Sets 4 and 7 from the Process Assessment of the Learner (PAL), and was conducted via small groups (three to six students) twice a week for 12 weeks in accordance with a response-to-intervention Tier 2 model. The primary outcome was the Wechsler Individual Achievement Test-II Written Expression Scale. Results indicated modest support for the PAL lesson plans, with an accelerated rate of growth in writing skills following treatment. There were no significant moderator effects, although there was evidence that the most globally impaired students demonstrated a more rapid rate of growth following treatment. These findings suggest the need for ongoing examination of evidence-based treatments in writing for young elementary students.

Syntactic complexity during conversation of boys with fragile X syndrome and Down syndrome.

PURPOSE: This study compared the syntax of boys who have fragile X syndrome (FXS) with and without autism spectrum disorder (ASD) with that of (a) boys who have Down syndrome (DS) and (b) typically developing (TD) boys. METHOD: Thirty-five boys with FXS only, 36 boys with FXS with ASD, 31 boys with DS, and 46 TD boys participated. Conversational language samples were evaluated for utterance length and syntactic complexity (i.e., Index of Productive Syntax; H. S. Scarborough, 1990). RESULTS: After controlling for nonverbal mental age and maternal education levels, the 2 FXS groups did not differ in utterance length or syntactic complexity. The FXS groups and the DS group produced shorter, less complex utterances overall and less complex noun phrases, verb phrases, and sentence structures than did the TD boys. The FXS with ASD group and the DS group, but not the FXS-only group, produced less complex questions/negations than did the TD group. Compared with the DS group, both FXS groups produced longer, more complex utterances overall, but on the specific complexity measures, they scored higher only on questions/negations. CONCLUSION: Boys with FXS and DS have distinctive language profiles. Although both groups demonstrated syntactic delays, boys with DS showed greater delays.