Next Article in Journal
GIS-Based Modeling of Human Settlement Suitability for the Belt and Road Regions
Previous Article in Journal
Gram-Negative Rods on Inanimate Surfaces of Selected Hospital Facilities and Their Nosocomial Significance
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
IJERPH
Volume 19
Issue 10
10.3390/ijerph19106043
ijerph-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Language Intervention in Down Syndrome: A Systematic Literature Review

by
Esther Moraleda-Sepúlveda
1,*,
Patricia López-Resa
1,
Noelia Pulido-García
1,
Soraya Delgado-Matute
1 and
Natalia Simón-Medina
2
1
Facultad de Ciencias de la Salud, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 45600 Talavera de la Reina, Spain
2
Facultad de Educación de Toledo, Universidad de Castilla-La Mancha, 45005 Toledo, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(10), 6043; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19106043
Submission received: 7 April 2022 / Revised: 9 May 2022 / Accepted: 10 May 2022 / Published: 16 May 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Disabilities)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Language is one of the most affected areas in people with Down syndrome and is one of the most influential throughout their development. That is why the linguistic difficulties presented by this group are susceptible to treatment through different specific interventions. However, little emphasis has been placed on the effectiveness and importance of this type of intervention in improving their language skills. Therefore, this work aimed to carry out a systemic literature review of language intervention programs that have been carried out in the last 20 years. To this end, a total of 18 articles were analyzed in which the effectiveness of different types of treatment related to oral language, written language and communication, in general, was studied, using the guidelines of the PRISMA Statement and the COSMIN methodology. The results highlight that language intervention improves linguistic levels in people with Down Syndrome. Most of the research focuses on early interventions and interventions carried out through individual sessions. Nevertheless, the data are unanimous in considering the efficacy and effectiveness of the proposed treatments for improving the language skills of people with Down syndrome. Thus, linguistic intervention is a fundamental area of work throughout the lives of people with Down syndrome.

1. Introduction

Down syndrome (DS) consists mainly of an alteration in the number of chromosomes, which can lead to a genetic disorder. It is the most frequent aneuploidy in live newborns and, as we said, the main and most frequent genetic cause of intellectual disability [1,2,3]. This genetic modification causes alterations in the development and function of organs and systems, both in the prenatal and postnatal stages [4,5]. Despite the great variability in DS cases, the characteristic phenotype of DS causes alterations in the development and acquisition of language [6,7,8].
From all the above, it is easy to infer that people with DS are going to develop problems in both language and communication that are generally due to problems in development [9]. For this reason, it is important to comprehend and study the language development of children with DS as well as each of the components comprising it, thus understanding and “discovering” the aspects that need to be influenced by the intervention [10]. Regarding the development of language, the results of research conducted so far have been interpreted in a variety of manners. Some authors support the hypothesis of a slower pace in the language acquisition process compared to children with Typical Development (TD) [11,12]. Other authors emphasize the differences in language acquisition between children with DS and children with TD to conclude that language development follows a different course of development from the very beginning [13]. Along the same lines, several studies have shown that the language of children with DS comprises a qualitatively different pattern compared to children with TD, mainly associated with their phenotype [6,14,15,16].
In any case, language skills in people with DS are not uniform and show great individual variability [17]. These children show different specific dissociations in the various domains and subdomains of language. For example, they develop better comprehension than production [18,19,20,21] and as regards production, they present a better lexical level than morphosyntactic skills [22,23,24,25,26].
Given the characteristics described above, people with DS are invariably candidates for speech therapy interventions. Language intervention for people with DS should try to improve functioning in communication, academic, social and professional areas [27]. Although most of the interventions put forward in this regard are developed in the early stages of language development [28,29,30], the language of people with DS can improve [31] and continue developing beyond childhood [32], especially if they continue to work with an appropriate language intervention program [33]. Therefore, speech therapy intervention is effective throughout childhood [34] and should be considered as part of a comprehensive intervention for people with DS [35,36].
Given the importance of language work in people with Down syndrome, the objective of this research was to review the scientific literature on the effectiveness of language intervention in this population.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Strategy for the Identification of Articles

To obtain a broader knowledge of the effectiveness of speech therapy interventions in people with DS, a systematic review of the literature was carried out following the guidelines of the PRISMA Statement [37] and the COSMIN methodology [38]. The literature search related to the research goal was carried out using five databases: MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Scopus and PubMed. Likewise, to reduce publication bias, the “Education Resources Information Center” (ERIC) database was included.
Moreover, the search strategy employed was put forward to efficiently determine the relevant documents in terms of the research that this review concerns. For this purpose, the following DeCS descriptors were used: “Down’s Syndrome”, “Rehabilitation of Speech and Language Disorders”, “Speech and Language Intervention”, “Speech and Language Therapy” and the Boolean operators “AND” and “OR” in order to be able to obtain all possible combinations.

2.2. Strategy for the Selection of Articles

The following criteria were used for the selection of articles: (1) published between 2000 and 2020, (2) written in Spanish or English and (3) comprising empirical studies that address speech therapy intervention in DS.
In this manner, the search process was carried out entirely in English and Spanish and the search fields were limited to the title, keywords and abstract. Articles that were not relevant to the review at hand, articles that dealt solely and exclusively with pharmacological treatment and articles not published in the chosen languages were excluded. Furthermore, those publications included in the period from 2000 to 2020 were included when their typology related to empirical research addressing or conducting speech therapy interventions in DS. The search was not limited by design type. To complement the search, a review of the bibliography contained in the selected articles was carried out.
Regarding the selection process, a taxonomic selection organized into three stages was conducted. The first stage was based on reading the titles of the results obtained in the various databases to choose those related to the goal of the review. The second involved reading the summaries to analyze whether they met the inclusion and exclusion criteria. The last stage focused on qualitative analysis through a comprehensive reading of the pre-selected papers [39] and the COSMIN checklist manual for conducting systematic reviews [37]. Subsequently, data collection was carried out, extracting pertinent information from each selected article to conduct this review.

2.3. Strategy for the Analysis of Scientific Evidence

The strategy followed for the analysis of scientific evidence aimed to facilitate the coding process of the characteristics and results of the different studies. More specifically, the following variables were coded: citation in APA format, type of study, study goals, sample size and average age, area of language on which intervention is conducted, type of speech therapy intervention (individual or group), frequency of the intervention sessions, results and main conclusions drawn.
A total of 2770 documents were identified by applying the search strategy explained above. No additional articles were added after a review of article references. Of the 2770 articles, 1899 were eliminated due to being duplicated, triplicated or quadrupled.
After screening by reading the title and abstract and applying the inclusion and exclusion criteria, a total of 136 articles were obtained, of which 24 were excluded because they did not focus on the object of study, 30 because they did not include people with DS in their sample, 39 because they involved an entirely pharmacological intervention and 25 for being systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Therefore, the final selection consisted of 18 articles. This entire process is detailed in Figure 1.

3. Results

Quantitative and qualitative analyses of the data were performed, and the average size of the total sample was computed. In addition, the average age was determined by calculating a weighted average based on the sample size. Lastly, the methodological quality of the included studies (Table 1) was evaluated using the COSMIN checklist [38] for systematic reviews.
The COSMISN risk of Bias contains ten boxes with standards for PROM development (box 1) and for nine measurement properties: Content validity (box 2), Structural validity (box 3), Internal consistency (box 4), Cross cultural validity/measurement invariance (box 5), Reliability (box 6), Measurement error (box 7), Criterion validity (box 8), Hypotheses testing for construct validity (box 9) and Responsiveness (box 10).
Finally, the study results were analyzed to individually assess bias and make a selection for subsequent data synthesis.
As reflected in Table 2, the final sample of this review consisted of 427 participants aged between 2 and 24 years (X = 6.96, SD = 6.06). Of the 427 participants, 416 had a diagnosis of DS (X = 6.82, SD = 5.66), and 11 were neurotypical. Only the studies by Burgoyne, Duff, Clarke, Buckley, Snowling and Hulme [51], Carlstedt, Henningsson and Dahllöf [48], Goetz et al. [50], Naess [46] and Sepúlveda, López-Villaseñor and Heinze [31] included a comparison control group and of these, only the studies by Carlstedt, Henningsson and Dahllöf [48] and Naess [46] included a neurotypical population group.
Regarding gender, the different studies presented a similar proportion of men and women. In this sense, 46.05% of the participants were women, and 53.95% were men. The studies of Barbosa, Lima, Alves and Delgado [45], Camarata, Yoder and Camarata [41], Finestack, O’Brien, Hyppa-Martin and Lyrek [49], Regis, Lima, Almeida, Alves and Delgado [33], Yoder, Woynaroski, Fey and Warren [52] and Yoder, Woynaroski, Fey, Warren and Gardner [29] did not specify the proportion of men and women in the sample.
As Table 3 illustrates, the research included in this study had very diverse specific objectives depending on the different areas of language. Most of the studies found in this regard were oriented—broadly speaking—to speech therapy intervention in oral language, written language and communication in DS.
The foregoing—considering the fact that the research included in this review was conducted with English (primarily) and Spanish-speaking populations—gives rise to a variety of assessment instruments chosen according to the goal and the mother tongue of the target study population (Table 4).
Regarding the specific results of the area related to metaphonological skills and literacy, the research by Burgoyne et al. [43,51] and Lemos et al. [42,47] showed that the explicit work of phoneme identification, syllable segmentation and phoneme substitution and addition significantly improved the decoding process that occurred in word reading. In this vein, Goetz et al. [50] also showed that the effectiveness of the intervention on metaphonological and decoding skills remained stable up to 5 months after the intervention ended. Furthermore, the study by Naess [46] showed that children with DS obtained a greater improvement in phonological, syllabic and rhyming awareness than their age peers with normal development as a result of formal education. In addition, Burgoyne et al. [43] and Van Bysterveldt, Gillon and Foster-Cohen [40] showed that explicit and structured work on phonological skills has a positive impact—in addition to reading—on the active lexicon and articulation, respectively.
Concerning oral language, the various papers reviewed offer an overview of the efficacy of speech therapy intervention in the comprehension and expression aspects of language. At a comprehension level, the study by Camarata, Yoder and Camarata [41] concludes that oral comprehension improves after the application of a naturalist intervention program. On the other hand, Linn et al. [44] reported improved sentence comprehension and passive vocabulary as a result of a family-focused intervention program. Continuing with the expressive level, the works reviewed show an increase in the Mean Length of Utterance [41,49], an increase in the active lexicon [29,46,51], a greater use of gestures to support communication and a substantial improvement in morphology, syntax and semantics [31]. In addition, the work of Wright, Kaiser, Reikowsky and Roberts [28] evidenced the efficacy of using Signed Augmentative Communication Systems in articulation-based speech therapy intervention and social communication. Lastly, Regis, Lima, Almeida, Alves and Delgado [33] concluded that speech therapy intervention favored the acquisition of skills closely related to language development and acquisition, such as imitation, communicative intention or designation.
Specifically concerning communicative and pragmatic skills, the work of Barbosa, Lima, Alves and Delgado [45] concluded that there was an improvement in social communication, autonomy and independence in the workplace of subjects with DS after the implementation of a naturalistic speech therapy intervention program. In this vein, Carlstedt, Henningsson and Dahllöf [48] showed that speech therapy intervention implemented simultaneously with the use of palatal expanders not only favored speech intelligibility but also increased the communicative intent of people with DS.

4. Discussion

The review of speech therapy intervention programs carried out with people with DS has yielded certain relevant findings. The first is that, in most cases, there are significant improvements after language treatment, so the need to carry out systematized interventions at the language level should continue to be insisted on throughout the entire development stage, as has been suggested by authors such as Rondal and Buckley [54]. However, it should be noted that there is still little research based on the effectiveness of intervention programs and strategies that improve the linguistic traits of people with DS [7,32] and this prevents us from generalizing their effectiveness. In addition, most were made with very small samples and focused primarily on children. There is hardly any literature on the efficacy of linguistic intervention in adults with DS.
In summary, all the studies concluded that the participants with DS obtained significant improvements in the areas assessed after receiving the systematized speech therapy intervention, regardless of the duration and frequency of the applied treatments. However, the study by Martín-Urda, Carchenilla and Moraleda [53] suggested that the effectiveness of an intervention program can be affected by the degree to which it has been systematized. In this vein, studies such as Burgoyne et al. [51] and Goetz et al. [50] showed that, although it is true that people with DS obtain a significant improvement after participating in an intervention program, the range of improvement grows when the intervention is conducted more frequently—in terms of sessions per week. Likewise, Carlstedt, Henningsson and Dahllöf [48] and Sepúlveda, López-Villaseñor and Heinze [31] concluded that, in addition, the suggested interventions were effective compared to other control groups, obtaining improvements with respect to the neurotypical population in the case of the former and regarding the DS population who were not administered the intervention program in question in the case of the latter.
The second finding is that, after the review, it was observed that most of the work was done with English-speaking children and, for this reason, the results and effectiveness thereof may be different depending on the language. According to Vicari et al. [13], it would be necessary to conduct research using other complex languages, such as Spanish. Moreover, the reviewed intervention may be very different in the various consulted research studies, depending on the areas on which the intervention focuses, since there are programs that start from a global stimulation of language [33], and others that focus expressly on specific areas, such as phonological awareness [46,47] or pragmatics [44,45]. It seems, therefore, that there is no consensus or continuity when proposing exhaustive interventions concerning different linguistic areas.
On the other hand, it is important to note that most of the research consulted considers the intervention from an individual perspective. This aspect is decisive when it comes to underlining and understanding that individualization in people with some kind of disability (in this case, DS) is essential when working toward the goals set [18,40,55,56,57]. Except in very specific cases, it seems clear that working with the specific needs of each person increases the effectiveness of the intervention.
In this prioritization of the intervention’s specific goals, the priorities of the family, the severity of the deficit and the importance of learning for functionality in educational and social contexts should also be taken into account [58,59,60]. Similarly, knowledge of the cognitive–behavioral phenotype of DS, such as the neurocognitive profile and developmental trajectory, can also guide intervention practices [61].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, this work aimed to carry out a systemic literature review of the 13 language intervention programs that have been carried out in the last 20 years. There is a relatively high level of knowledge about the development of language in people with DS and its difficulties, which is of great help and lays the foundation for directing the work of therapists and teachers [54]. A fundamental concern derived from this has been the adoption of a perspective that covers the entire life cycle of the person with DS, bearing in mind that language intervention is tailored to age and takes into account the communication needs of individuals with regard to their surroundings. Therefore, it is considered necessary to continue incorporating language-related professional practices—carried out from an educational or clinical approach in people with DS—into research, in order to continue improving this group’s skills, and, consequently, their quality of life.
The focus of this work consists of emphasizing the importance of speech therapy intervention and highlighting the lack of studies about the evaluation of the developed linguistic treatments. Therefore, we consider it essential for professionals and researchers to continue checking the linguistic intervention methods that are being finished.
Regarding the limitations of this review, it should be considered that the objective of the different studies reviewed is focused on different linguistic areas. In addition, we can find results in different languages, such as English, Spanish or Portuguese, with a different complexity, which could explain their variability.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, E.M.-S., P.L.-R., N.P.-G.; S.D.-M. and N.S.-M.; methodology, E.M.-S., P.L.-R. and N.P.-G.; software, E.M.-S. and P.L.-R.; formal analysis, E.M.-S. and P.L.-R.; Investigation, E.M.-S. and P.L.-R.; writing—original draft preparation, E.M.-S. and P.L.-R.; writing—review and editing, E.M.-S. and P.L.-R.; supervision, E.M.-S. and P.L.-R. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Crissman, B.G.; Worley, G.; Roizen, N.; Kishnani, P.S. Current perspectives on Down syndrome: Selected medical and social issues. Am. J. Med. Genet. Part C Semin. Med. Genet. 2006, 142C, 127–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Hodapp, R.M.; Urbano, R.C. Demographics of African-American vs. European-Heritage Mothers of Newborns with Down Syndrome. J. Policy Pract. Intellect. Disabil. 2008, 5, 187–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Galdzicki, Z.; Siarey, R.J. Understanding mental retardation in Down’s syndrome using trisomy 16 mouse models. Genes Brain Behav. 2003, 2, 167–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Delabar, J.M.; Aflalo-Rattenbac, R.; Creau, N. Developmental defects in trisomy 21 and mouse models. Sci. World J. 2006, 6, 1945–1964. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dowjat, W.K.; Adayev, T.; Kuchna, I.; Nowicki, K.; Palminiello, S.; Hwang, Y.W.; Wegiel, J. Trisomy-driven overexpression of DYRK1A kinase in the brain of subjects with Down syndrome. Neurosci. Lett. 2007, 413, 77–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Chapman, R.S.; Hesketh, L.J. The behavioral phenotype of Down syndrome. Ment. Retard. Dev. Disabil. Res. Rev. 2000, 6, 84–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Vocarrts, J.; Price, J.; Malkin, C. Language and Communication Development in Down Syndrome. Ment. Retard. Dev. Disabil. Res. Rev. 2007, 13, 26–35. [Google Scholar]
  8. Sheets, K.B.; Best, R.G.; Brasington, C.K.; Will, M.C. Información equilibrada sobre el síndrome de Down: ¿Qué es Lo Esencial? Rev. Síndrome Down 2011, 28, 86–101. [Google Scholar]
  9. Lima, I.L.B.; Delgado, I.C.; Cavalcante, M.C.B. Language development in Down syndrome: Literature analysis. Distúrb. Comun. 2017, 29, 354–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  10. Comblain, A.; Thewis, B. Développement du Langage Dans Divers Cas de Retard Mental Dus à la Trisomie 21: Evaluation et Intervention Clinique. Casos Clinicos en Logopedia; Masson: Paris, France, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  11. Beeghly, M.; Cicchetti, D. Early language development in children with Down Syndrome: A longitudinal study. In Proceedings of the XI Anual Boston University Conference on Language Development, Boston, MA, USA, March 1986. [Google Scholar]
  12. Oliver, B.; Buckley, S.J. The language development of children with Down’s syndrome: First words to two-word phrases. Down Syndr. Res. Pract. 1994, 2, 71–75. [Google Scholar]
  13. Vicari, S.; Caselli, M.C.; Tonucci, F. Asynchrony of lexical and morphosyntactic development in children with Down Syndrome. Neuropsychologia 2000, 38, 634–644. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Fowler, A. Language abilities in children with Down syndrome: Evidence for a specific syntactic delay. In Children with Down syndrome: A Developmental Perspective; Cicchetti, D., Beeghly, M., Eds.; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1990; pp. 302–328. [Google Scholar]
  15. Mason-Apps, E.; Stojanovik, V.; Houston-Price, C.; Buckley, S. Longitudinal predictors of early language in infants with Down syndrome: A preliminary study. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2018, 81, 37–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  16. Rondal, J. Down syndrome. In Language Development in Exceptional Circunstances; Bishop, D.V.M., Mogford, K., Eds.; LEA: Hove, UK, 1993; pp. 165–176. [Google Scholar]
  17. Stoel-Gammon, C. Down syndrome. Effects on language development. ASHA 1990, 32, 42–44. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  18. Karmiloff-Smith, A.; Al-Janabi, T.; d’Souza, H.; Groet, J.; Massand, E.; Mok, K.; Startin, C.; Fisher, E.; Hardy, J.; Nizetic, D.; et al. The importance of understanding individual differences in Down syndrome. F1000Research 2016, 5, 389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Abbeduto, L.; Pavetto, M.; Kesin, E.; Weissman, M.D.; Karadottir, S.; O’Brien, A.; Cawthon, S. The linguistic and cognitive profile of Down syndrome: Evidence from a comparison with fragile X syndrome. Down Syndr. Res. Pract. 2001, 7, 9–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  20. Chapman, R.S.; Hesketh, L.J.; Kistler, D. Predicting longitudinal change in language production and comprehension in individuals with Down syndrome: Hierarchical linear modeling. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2002, 45, 902–915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Eadie, P.A.; Fey, M.E.; Douglas, J.M.; Parsons, C.L. Rofiles of grammatical morphology and sentence imitation in children with specific language impairment and Down syndrome. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2002, 45, 720–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Garayzábal, E.; Lázaro, M.; Moraleda Sepúlveda, E. Guía de Intervención Logopédica en el Síndrome de Down; Editorial Síntesis: Madrid, Spain, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  23. Caselli, M.C.; Marchetti, M.C.; Vicari, S. Conoscenze lessicali e primo sviluppo morfosintattico. In Le Persone Down; Contardi, A., Vicari, S., Eds.; Franco Angeli: Milan, Italy, 1994; pp. 28–48. [Google Scholar]
  24. Caselli, M.C.; Vicari, S.; Longobardi, E. Gestures and words in early development of children with Down syndrome. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 1998, 41, 1125–1135. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chapman, R.S.; Seung, H.; Schwartz, S.E.; Kay-Raining Bird, E. Language skills of children and adolescents with Down syndrome: II. Production deficits. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 1998, 41, 861–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Martin, G.E.; Losh, M.; Estigarribia, B.; Sideris, J.; Roberts, J. Longitudinal profiles of expressive vocabulary, syntax and pragmatic language in boys with fragile X syndrome or Down syndrome. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2013, 48, 432–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Neil, N.; Jones, E.A. Communication intervention for individuals with Down syndrome: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Dev. Neurorehabilit. 2018, 21, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  28. Wright, C.A.; Kaiser, A.P.; Reikowsky, D.I.; Roberts, M.Y. Effects of a naturalistic sign intervention on expressive language of toddlers with down syndrome. J. Speech Lang. Hear. Res. 2013, 56, 994–1008. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yoder, P.J.; Woynaroski, T.; Fey, M.E.; Warren, S.F.; Gardner, E. Why dose frequency affects spoken vocabulary in preschoolers with Down syndrome. Am. J. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 2015, 120, 302–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  30. Chapman, R.S. Language development in adolescents with Down syndrome. In Adolescents with Down Syndrome; Pueschel, S., Sustrova, M., Eds.; Brooks: Baltimore, MD, USA, 1997; pp. 99–110. [Google Scholar]
  31. Sepúlveda, E.M.; López-Villaseñor, M.L.; Heinze, E.G. Can individuals with Down syndrome improve their grammar? Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2013, 48, 343–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Pelatti, C.Y. Enhancing oral and written language for adolescents and young adults with Down syndrome. In Seminars in Speech and Language; Thieme Medical Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2015; Volume 36, pp. 50–59. [Google Scholar]
  33. Regis, M.S.; Lima, I.L.B.; Almeida, L.N.A.; Alves, G.D.S.; Delgado, I.C. Speech-language therapy stimulation in children with Down’s syndrome. Rev. CEFAC 2018, 20, 271–280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Smith, E.; Hokstad, S.; Næss, K.A.B. Children with Down syndrome can benefit from language interventions; Results from a systematic review and meta-analysis. J. Commun. Disord. 2020, 85, 105992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Baxter, R.; Hulme, C.; Rees, R.; Perovic, A. An evaluation of a language intervention for children with Down syndrome. In Proceedings of the Gatlinburg Conference on Research and Theory in Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, San Antonio, TX, USA, 3–5 April 2019. [Google Scholar]
  36. O’Toole, C.; Lee, A.S.Y.; Gibbon, F.E.; van Bysterveldt, A.K.; Hart, N.J. Parent-mediated interventions for promoting communication and language development in young children with Down syndrome. In Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2018. [Google Scholar]
  37. Page, M.J.; McKenzie, J.E.; Bossuyt, P.M.; Boutron, I.; Hoffmann, T.C.; Mulrow, C.D.; Shamseer, L.; Tetzlaff, J.M.; Akl, E.A.; Brennan, S.E. Declaración PRISMA 2020: Una guía actualizada para la publicación de revisiones sistemáticas. Rev. Española Cardiol. 2021, 74, 790–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Mokkink, L.B.; Terwee, C.B.; Patrick, D.L.; Alonso, J.; Stratford, P.W.; Knol, D.L.; Bouter, L.M.; de Vet, H.C. COSMIN Checklist Manual; University Medical Center: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  39. Oscar, V.C. Cómo escribir artículos de revisión. Rev. Med. La Paz. 2009, 15, 63–69. [Google Scholar]
  40. Van Bysterveldt, A.K.; Gillon, G.; Foster-Cohen, S. Integrated speech and phonological awareness intervention for pre-school children with Down syndrome. Int. J. Lang. Commun. Disord. 2010, 45, 320–335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Camarata, S.; Yoder, P.; Camarata, M. Simultaneous treatment of grammatical and speech-comprehensibility deficits in children with Down syndrome. Downs Syndr. Res. Pract. 2006, 11, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Lemons, C.J.; King, S.A.; Davidson, K.A.; Puranik, C.S.; Al Otaiba, S.; Fidler, D.J. Personalized reading intervention for children with Down syndrome. J. Sch. Psychol. 2018, 66, 67–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  43. Burgoyne, K.; Duff, F.J.; Clarke, P.J.; Buckley, S.; Snowling, M.J.; Hulme, C. Efficacy of a reading and language intervention for children with Down syndrome: A randomized controlled trial. J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry 2012, 53, 1044–1053. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Linn, K.; Sevilla, F.; Cifuentes, V.; Eugenin, M.I.; Río, B.; Cerda, J.; Lizama, M. Desarrollo de habilidades comunicativas en lactantes con síndrome de Down posterior a capacitaciones sistematizadas en comunicación gestual. Rev. Chil. Pediatría 2019, 90, 175–185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Barbosa, T.; Lima, I.; Alves, G.; Delgado, I.C. Contributions of speech-language therapy to the integration of individuals with Down syndrome in the workplace. CoDAS 2018, 30, e20160144. [Google Scholar]
  46. Naess, K.A.B. Development of phonological awareness in Down syndrome: A meta-analysis and empirical study. Dev. Psychol. 2016, 52, 177–190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Lemons, C.J.; King, S.A.; Davidson, K.A.; Puranik, C.; Fulmer, D.; Mrachko, A.A.; Partanen, J.; Al Otaiba, S.; Fidler, D.J. Adapting phonological awareness interventions for children with Down syndrome based on the behavioral phenotype: A promising approach? Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 2015, 53, 271–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Carlstedt, K.; Henningsson, G.; Dahllöf, G. A four-year longitudinal study of palatal plate therapy in children with Down syndrome: Effects on oral motor function, articulation and communication preferences. Acta Odontol. Scand. 2003, 61, 39–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Finestack, L.; O’Brien, K.H.; Hyppa-Martin, J.; Lyrek, K.A. The evaluation of a personal narrative language intervention for school-age children with Down syndrome. Am. J. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 2017, 122, 310–332. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Goetz, K.; Hulme, C.; Brigstocke, S.; Carroll, J.M.; Nasir, L.; Snowling, M. Training reading and phoneme awareness skills in children with Down syndrome. Read. Writ. 2008, 21, 395–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Burgoyne, K.; Duff, F.; Snowling, M.; Buckley, S.; Hulme, C. Training phoneme blending skills in children with Down syndrome. Child Lang. Teach. Ther. 2013, 29, 273–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  52. Yoder, P.; Woynaroski, T.; Fey, M.; Warren, S. Effects of dose frequency of early communication intervention in young children with and without Down syndrome. Am. J. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 2014, 119, 17–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  53. Rodríguez, L.M.-U.; Martín, T.C.; Sepúlveda, E.M. Eficacia de la intervención lingüística en adolescentes con síndrome de down. Siglo Cero 2019, 50, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Rondal, J.; Buckley, F. Speech and Language Intervention. In Down Syndrome; Whurr: London, UK, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  55. Cologon, K.; Cupples, L.; Wyver, S. Effects of targeted reading instruction on phonological awareness and phonic decoding in children with Down syndrome. Am. J. Intellect. Dev. Disabil. 2013, 116, 111–129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Dolva, A.S.; Coster, W.; Lilja, M. Functional performance in children with Down syndrome. Am. J. Occup. Ther. 2004, 58, 621–629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Launonen, K. Enhancing communication skills of children with Down syndrome: Early use of manual signs. In Augmentative and Alternative Communication: European Perspectives; Wiley: London, UK, 1996; pp. 213–231. [Google Scholar]
  58. Crais, E.R.; Wilson, L.B. The role of parents in child assessment: Self-evaluation by practicing professionals. Infant Toddler Interv. 1996, 6, 125–144. [Google Scholar]
  59. Dodge, E.P. Communication skills: The foundation for meaningful group intervention in school-based programs. Top. Lang. Disord. 2004, 24, 141–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. McCauley, R.J.; Fey, M.E. Treatment of Language Disorders in Children; Paul H. Brookes: Baltimore, MD, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  61. Fidler, D.J.; Most, D.E.; Guiberson, M.M. Neuropsychological correlates of word identification in Down syndrome. Res. Dev. Disabil. 2005, 26, 487–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Ijerph 19 06043 g001 550
Figure 1. Flowchart of the information obtained through the different phases of the systematic review.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the information obtained through the different phases of the systematic review.
Ijerph 19 06043 g001
Table
Table 1. Results of the evaluation of the quality of the studies.
Table 1. Results of the evaluation of the quality of the studies.
Research12345678910Evaluation
van Bysterveldt, Gillon and Foster-Cohen (2010) [40]+++++−+++?High
Camarata, Yoder and Camarata (2006) [41]++++?−+++−Medium
Lemons, King, Davidson, Puranik, Al Otaiba and Fidler (2018) [42]+?+++−+++−Medium
Burgoyne et al. (2012) [43]?++++−+++?Medium
Linn et al. (2019) [44]++++?−+++−Medium
Barbosa, Lima, Alves and Delgado (2018) [45]+++++−?++−Medium
Naess (2016) [46]+++++−?++−Medium
Lemons et al. (2015) [47]?+++?−+++?Medium
Sepúlveda, López-Villaseñor and Heinze (2013) [31]+?++?−+++−Medium
Wright, Kaiser, Reikowsky and Roberts (2013) [28]++++++?+++High
Yoder, Woynaroski, Fey, Warren and Gardner (2015) [29]++++−+−++?Medium
Carlstedt, Henningsson, Dahllöf (2003) [48]?++++−−+−+Low
Finestack, O’Brien, Hyppa-Martin and Lyrek (2017) [49]++++++?−+?Medium
Goetz, Hulme, Brigstocke, Carroll, Nasir and Snowling (2008) [50]+++−+++−+?Medium
Burgoyne, Duff, Snowling, Buckley and Hulme (2013) [51]?++−++++−+Medium
Regis, Lima, Almeida, Alves and Delgado (2018) [33]++++?+?+−+Medium
Yoder, Woynaroski, Fey and Warren (2014) [52]−+−−++++++Medium
Martín-Urda, Carchenilla and Moraleda (2019) [53]+−?+++?+++Medium
+ positive; − negative; ? Not proceed.
Table
Table 2. Sociodemographic variables of the studies reviewed.
Table 2. Sociodemographic variables of the studies reviewed.
AuthorsSample DescriptionControl GroupStudy
Component
NAverage AgeSex
(F/M)
van Bysterveldt, Gillon and Foster-Cohen (2010) [40]104.915/5NoSpeech and phonological awareness
Camarata, Yoder and Camarata (2006) [41]65.7Not specifiedNoGrammar and speech
Lemons, King, Davidson, Puranik, Al Otaiba and Fidler (2018) [42]68.15/1NoPhonological awareness
Burgoyne et al. (2012) [43]576.5928/29YesLanguage and literacy
Linn et al. (2019) [44]212.2511/10NoLanguage development
Barbosa, Lima, Alves and Delgado (2018) [45]524Not specifiedNoPragmatics
Naess (2016) [46]436.322/21NoPhonological awareness
Lemons et al. (2015) [47]57.3423NoPhonological awareness
Sepúlveda, López-Villaseñor and Heinze (2013) [31]2010.589/11YesMorphosyntax
Wright, Kaiser, Reikowsky and Roberts (2013) [28]42.082/2NoExpressive language
Yoder, Woynaroski, Fey, Warren and Gardner (2015) [29]641.83Not specifiedNoExpressive lexicon
Carlstedt, Henningsson, Dahllöf (2003) [48]2028/12YesSpeech and pragmatics
Finestack, O’Brien, Hyppa-Martin and Lyrek (2017) [49]411.9Not specifiedNoNarrative skills
Goetz, Hulme, Brigstocke, Carroll, Nasir and Snowling (2008) [50]1510.38/7NoLiteracy
Burgoyne, Duff, Snowling, Buckley and Hulme (2013) [51]108.332/8NoPhonological awareness
Regis, Lima, Almeida, Alves and Delgado (2018) [33]4916.25Not specifiedNoLanguage development
Yoder, Woynaroski, Fey and Warren (2014) [52]762.08Not specifiedYesActive lexicon
Martín-Urda, Carchenilla and Moraleda (2019) [53]1216.785/7NoOral language
Table
Table 3. Study goals and intervention design of the studies consulted.
Table 3. Study goals and intervention design of the studies consulted.
Authors/YearStudy GoalIntervention Design
van Bysterveldt, Gillon and Foster-Cohen (2010) [40]To analyze the efficacy of an intervention approach in the development of speech and phonological awareness in subjects with DS at the preschool age.1 session per week of 20 min of speech therapy where computer-based learning was used.
Camarata, Yoder and Camarata (2006) [41]To highlight the benefits of grammatical and speech intervention in the social inclusion of people with DS.Naturalistic intervention based on restructuring. Daily intervention.
Lemons, King, Davidson, Puranik, Al Otaiba and Fidler (2018) [42]To assess the potential efficacy and feasibility of early intervention for children with DS.4 interventions a week of between 20 and 40 min
Burgoyne et al. (2012) [43]To assess the effects of language and literacy intervention in children with DS.5 sessions of 40 min of intervention per week (20 weeks)
Linn et al. (2019) [44]To describe the type of communicative behaviors before and after undergoing a training program in gestural communication based on “signs, words and games” workshops from the “baby signs” program.Intervention 7 weeks.
1 workshop per week.
Barbosa, Lima, Alves and Delgado (2018) [45]To analyze the contributions of speech therapy interventions in the integration of young people with DS in the workplace, with reference to their professionalization.Naturalistic intervention at work. Daily intervention, 5 days a week.
Naess (2016) [46]To analyze phonological awareness skills in children with DS compared to TDDaily school intervention, 5 days a week.
Lemons et al. (2015) [47]To determine if the adaptation of a phonological awareness program would improve the learning process of children with DS, the sounds of letters and words.Manipulative intervention five days a week.
Sepúlveda, López-Villaseñor and Heinze (2013) [31]To determine if subjects with DS can improve in the morphosyntactic area30 sessions of 30 min of intervention distributed over three and a half months. Participants received two sessions per week.
Wright, Kaiser, Reikowsky and Roberts (2013) [28]To analyze the effects of a bimodal Augmentative and Alternative Systems of Communication on the expressive language of young children with DS2 intervention sessions of 30 min per week. Game-based learning
Yoder, Woynaroski, Fey, Warren and Gardner (2015) [29]To determine the effectiveness of the frequency of speech therapy intervention in the lexical component of children with DSAttending the Early Attention Service (Servicio de Atención Temprana). 1 weekly session
Carlstedt, Henningsson, Dahllöf (2003) [48]To assess the effects of Palatal Plate Therapy (PPT) on oral motor function, articulation and communication preferences after 4 years of therapy.Use of a palatal expander with orofacial stimulation.
Finestack, O’Brien, Hyppa-Martin and Lyrek (2017) [49]To evaluate the quality of an intervention focused on improving the narrative skills of children with DS, using an approach that includes visual supports.Sessions of between 30 and 60 min three times a week. Game-based learning
Goetz, Hulme, Brigstocke, Carroll, Nasir and Snowling (2008) [50]To assess whether children with DS benefit from an intervention program that trains phonological awareness, letter knowledge and speech production.Phonological intervention program of 5 weekly sessions for 16 weeks (8 for precursor literacy skills and 8 for literacy)
Burgoyne, Duff, Snowling, Buckley and Hulme (2013) [51]To evaluate the efficacy of a 6-week teaching program aimed at developing phoneme blending skills in children with DS.Individual daily 10–15 min intervention sessions on phonological awareness skills
Regis, Lima, Almeida, Alves and Delgado (2018) [33]To analyze the contributions of speech therapy to the language development of children with DS8 therapy sessions
Yoder, Woynaroski, Fey and Warren (2014) [52]To assess the effectiveness of Milieu Communication Teaching (MCT) based on the frequency of intervention in subjects with DSMilieu Communication Teaching (prelinguistic milieu teaching, milieu language teaching and responsivity education)
Martín-Urda, Carchenilla and Moraleda (2019) [53]To determine if there are improvements in morphology, syntax, pragmatics and semantics with a non-systematized intervention in children with DSNon-systematized speech therapy intervention of two sessions of 40 min a week for 5 years.
Table
Table 4. Assessment instruments in the articles consulted.
Table 4. Assessment instruments in the articles consulted.
Authors/YearInstruments Used
van Bysterveldt, Gillon and Foster-Cohen (2010) [40]Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test—III, Pre-School Language Scale—Fourth Edition and Hodson’s Assessment of Phonological Patterns, Third Edition
Camarata, Yoder and Camarata (2006) [41]Spontaneous speech samples
Lemons, King, Davidson, Puranik, Al Otaiba and Fidler (2018) [42]Ad hoc survey
Burgoyne et al. (2012) [43]WPPSI-III, Early Word Recognition (EWR) from the York Assessment of Reading for Comprehension (YARC) Early Reading battery
Linn et al. (2019) [44]Communicative Development Inventory (CDI) adapted to people with DS (CDI-DS) and Bayley III Test
Barbosa, Lima, Alves and Delgado (2018) [45]Self-made questionnaire and discourse analysis
Naess (2016) [46]Experimental syllable-initial, syllable-final, rhyme and phoneme-initial matching tasks
Lemons et al. (2015) [47]Leiter-R Brief IQ and Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Achievement
Sepúlveda, López-Villaseñor and Heinze (2013) [31]Objective and Criterial Language Battery (BLOC)
Wright, Kaiser, Reikowsky and Roberts (2013) [28]Analysis of a corpus of videos
Yoder, Woynaroski, Fey, Warren and Gardner (2015) [29]Ad hoc questionnaire completed by the parents
Carlstedt, Henningsson, Dahllöf (2003) [48]Ad Hoc assessment of articulation and myofunctional assessment with Ad Hoc protocol
Finestack, O’Brien, Hyppa-Martin and Lyrek (2017) [49]Differential Ability Scales II (DAS-II), CELF-IV Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals, Test of Narrative Language (TNL) and Conversational Language Sample
Goetz, Hulme, Brigstocke, Carroll, Nasir and Snowling (2008) [50]British Picture Vocabulary Scales, Nonverbal IQ, British Ability Scales II
Burgoyne, Duff, Snowling, Buckley and Hulme (2013) [51]YARC Early Word Recognition (EWR) test, Expressive and Receptive One Word Picture Vocabulary Test,
Teaching Assistant Questionnaire
Regis, Lima, Almeida, Alves and Delgado (2018) [33]Ad Hoc evaluation guideline
Yoder, Woynaroski, Fey and Warren (2014) [52]Mental Development Index, Bayley II, Screening Tool for Autism in 2-year-olds
Martín-Urda, Carchenilla and Moraleda (2019) [53]WISC-IV Intelligence Scales
Battery of Objective and Criterial Language in its computerized version (BLOC-INFO)
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Moraleda-Sepúlveda, E.; López-Resa, P.; Pulido-García, N.; Delgado-Matute, S.; Simón-Medina, N. Language Intervention in Down Syndrome: A Systematic Literature Review. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19, 6043. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19106043

AMA Style

Moraleda-Sepúlveda E, López-Resa P, Pulido-García N, Delgado-Matute S, Simón-Medina N. Language Intervention in Down Syndrome: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(10):6043. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19106043

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moraleda-Sepúlveda, Esther, Patricia López-Resa, Noelia Pulido-García, Soraya Delgado-Matute, and Natalia Simón-Medina. 2022. "Language Intervention in Down Syndrome: A Systematic Literature Review" International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health 19, no. 10: 6043. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19106043

APA Style

Moraleda-Sepúlveda, E., López-Resa, P., Pulido-García, N., Delgado-Matute, S., & Simón-Medina, N. (2022). Language Intervention in Down Syndrome: A Systematic Literature Review. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 19(10), 6043. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19106043

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop