A systematic review of studies that focused on the executive functions of problem solving, planning, organising and multitasking by adults with traumatic brain injury (TBI) was performed through 2004. Qualitative and quantitative methods were used to evaluate the 15 studies that met inclusion criteria. Demographic variables, design and intervention features, and impairment and activity/participation outcomes (ICF) (World Health Organization, 2001 World Health Organization. 2001. ICF: International classification of functioning, disability, and health, Geneva, , Switzerland: WHO. [Google Scholar] ) were documented. Five randomised control treatment (RCT) studies used step-by-step, metacognitive strategy instruction (MSI) and outcomes were evaluated in a meta-analysis. Effect sizes (ESs) from immediate impairment outcomes after MSI and “control” intervention were similar to each other, and both were significantly larger than chance. ESs from immediate activity/participation outcomes after MSI were significantly larger than the ESs from control intervention, and both were significantly larger than chance. These results, along with positive outcomes from the other group, single-subject design and single case studies, provided sufficient evidence to make the clinical recommendation that MSI should be used with young to middle-aged adults with TBI, when improvement in everyday, functional problems is the goal (Level A) (American Academy of Neurology, 2004 American Academy of Neurology. 2004. Clinical practice guideline process manual Edited by: Edlund, W. , Gonseth, G. , So, Y. and Franklin, G. Prepared for the Quality Standards Subcommittee and the Therapeutics and Technology Assessment Subcommittee, by. Retrieved June 18 2006 at www.aan.org [Google Scholar] ). Although maintenance effects were generally positive, there was insufficient data quantitatively to evaluate this. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence to make clinical recommendations for children or older adults. Intervention that trained verbal reasoning and multi-tasking was promising, although the evidence is insufficient to make clinical recommendations at this time. Additional research needs were highlighted.

Purpose: The present study is a meta-analysis that examines the difference in novel word learning performance between children with primary language impairment (LI) and typically developing children. Participant and task characteristics were examined as variables that potentially moderated children’s word learning. Method: Eight hundred and forty-six published studies were retrieved from conventional databases (PsycINFO, MEDLINE, and Web of Science). Of these studies, 28 met the criteria for inclusion in the meta-analysis, yielding 244 effect sizes across experimental conditions. Results: LI groups showed significantly lower word learning performance than typical age-matched groups and equivalent performance to typical language–matched groups. Moderator analyses showed that the magnitude of the group difference relative to age peers was significantly associated with participants' chronological age, receptive language and cognitive abilities, task and novel word type, and the extent of novel word exposure. Conclusion: The difference in novel word learning performance between children with LI and age-matched children is strongly affected by task and participant characteristics in the primary studies.

Purpose: This article addresses a series of questions that are critical to planning and implementing effective intervention programs for young linguistically diverse learners with primary language impairment (LI). Linguistically diverse learners in the United States include children whose families speak languages such as Spanish, Korean, Cantonese, Hmong, Vietnamese, or any language other than, or in addition to, English. Method: A narrative review of the relevant literature addresses clinical questions including (a) Why support the home language when it is not the language used in school or the majority community? (b) Does continued support for the home language undermine attainment in a second language? (c) Should we support the home language when it includes the code switching or mixing of two traditionally separate languages? and (d) What are some strategies that can be used to support the home language when it is a language that the speech-language pathologist (SLP) does not speak? Conclusion: SLPs should provide services to linguistically diverse preschool-age children with LI in a manner that effectively supports the development of the home language. Parent and paraprofessional training along with peer-mediated models of intervention are presented as two possible methods for facilitating the home language in children with LI.

Picture naming and picture identification tasks were used to investigate lexical-semantic skills in young children learning Hmong as a first language (L1) and English as a second language (L2). A total of 19 children, ages 3;4 (years;months)-5;2, participated in this study. Performance on lexical tasks was analyzed as a function of development (older and younger participants), language (Hmong and English), modality (receptive and expressive skills), and the nature of total or "composite" vocabulary scores (translation equivalents or singles, reflecting comparable forms in both languages as compared to concepts lexicalized into only 1 language). Older participants outperformed younger participants in English, but not Hmong, indicating a relative stabilization of L1 skills, alongside more robust growth in L2. The difference between expressive and receptive performance was also much greater in Hmong than English. Composite scores were always greater than single language scores and the proportion of translation equivalents increased with age.

Previous studies show that young monolingual children's ability to ‘fast map’ new word forms is closely associated with both their age and existing vocabulary knowledge. In this study we investigate potential relationships between age, fast mapping skills and existing vocabulary knowledge in both languages of developing bilingual preschool children. Participants were twenty-six typically developing children, ages 3 ; 0 to 5 ; 3. All children learned Hmong as their primary home language (L1) and English as a second language (L2). Fast mapping and vocabulary knowledge tasks were administered in L1 and L2. For vocabulary knowledge, scores were comparable in L1 and L2; for fast mapping, scores were somewhat greater in L1 than L2. In contrast to previous findings with monolingual children, fast mapping performance was not related to age or existing vocabulary knowledge in either Hmong or English. There were, however, significant positive and negative cross-language correlations between L1 fast mapping and L2 vocabulary.

Two groups of Mandarin–English bilingual children (3–5-year-olds, 6–8-year-olds) participated in a picture identification task and a picture naming task in both languages. Results revealed age-related growth in English, but not Mandarin vocabulary. Composite vocabulary was larger than either single-language vocabulary in the younger children but was similar to English vocabulary in the older children. Furthermore, children showed a larger receptive–expressive modality difference in their weaker language (Mandarin) than in their stronger language (English). These patterns indicate rapid growth in English vocabulary along with early stabilization of Mandarin vocabulary despite considerable Mandarin input in the home setting.