Data-Informed Guideposts for Decision Making in Enhanced Conversational Recast Treatment

Abstract

Background To maximize treatment efficiency, it would be useful to determine how long to continue a treatment approach before concluding that it is not effective for a particular client, whether and when generalization of treatment is likely to occur, and at what point to end treatment once a child is approaching mastery. Method We analyzed aggregate data from 117 preschoolers with developmental language disorder from a decade of treatment studies on Enhanced Conversational Recast therapy to determine whether the timing of treatment response impacts its overall effectiveness and whether certain levels of accuracy during treatment enable 100% accurate generalization after treatment ends. Results We found that children who take longer than 10 days to answer one item correctly during treatment are unlikely to ever respond to the treatment approach. Generalization accuracy closely followed treatment accuracy, suggesting the two are tightly linked for this treatment method. We did not find evidence that attaining a certain level of accuracy below 100% during treatment enabled children to generalize with 100% accuracy after treatment ended. Conclusions Clinicians using Enhanced Conversational Recast treatment can use these markers to help make evidence-based decisions in their practice regarding how long to continue treatment. Importantly, these data suggest that stopping treatment before a child has attained 100% accuracy (for at least three sessions) does not ensure that a child will ever reach 100% accuracy on their own.