Imitative modeling as a language intervention strategy: the effects of two mediating variables

Previous research has indicated that language intervention strategies which stress the learning of abstract grammatical rules are more successful than those which emphasize specific stimulus-response associations. Accordingly, this study experimentally compared two such strategies (imitative modeling versus mimicry) to determine their relative effectiveness in teaching language-disordered children rules which they previously lacked. Moreover, two additional variables, reinforcement and whether the modeled examples originated with the clinician or with a separate, third-person model, were examined to determine their influence on the modeling process. The results suggest that modeling strategies were superior to mimicry, thereby replicating the earlier results of Courtright and Courtright (1976). In addition, it was found that neither reinforcement nor third-person models significantly increased the teaching effectiveness of modeling techniques. These results are discussed in terms of their pragmatic implications for practicing speech clinicians.