Thank you, this link works!

The link doesn’t seem to work.

Thank you Kate! 😊

Thank you very much Lindsey!

Thank you Lesley!

Thank you Jo! 😊

Thank you Tamara! 😊

Thank you Stephen! 😊

This meta-analysis may be of interest to you
@theinformedslp.bsky.social @frickesilke.bsky.social @salonikrishnan.bsky.social @logopedie.bsky.social @hazelroddam.bsky.social @jititterington.bsky.social @tkalan.bsky.social @edldproject.bsky.social

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

This meta-analysis may be of interest to you @kateshobbrook.bsky.social @cristina-mckean.bsky.social @susanebbels.bsky.social @suze-freogirl.bsky.social @juliastarling.bsky.social @deevybee.bsky.social @naplic.bsky.social @radld.bsky.social

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

This meta-analysis provides clinicians factors to consider, but further research with larger data sets regarding factors contributing to efficacy is still needed before applying these results confidently to clinical practice.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

In this data, both the content and the intervention hours varied. The association of given intervention hours and effect sizes was marginal, indicating that the content of the intervention appears to affect efficacy more than the number of intervention hours.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

Although children of different ages can benefit from interventions to enhance oral language comprehension, the child’s age needs to be carefully considered to develop interventions that are optimal.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

The interventions differed according to age: interventions for older (8–13y) children were more targeted, adult-directed, applied in formal activities, used taught strategies and more explicit methods of instruction compared to younger (2–7y) children.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

Targeting solely receptive language was associated with larger effect sizes than targeting both receptive and expressive language. If aiming to support solely comprehension, targeting receptive l. rather than both r&e l. seems preferable to maximize efficacy.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

Interventions targeting language processing, such as auditory processing or automatization, indicated no clinically significant efficacy, whereas targeting language, language environment, or teaching compensatory strategies indicated efficacy.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...

Oral language comprehension skills of children with or at risk for (D)LD can be supported.

Age was not associated with efficacy, indicating that 2–13-year-old children can benefit from comprehension interventions regardless of their age.

onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/...