Receptive Vocabulary Paper

The two treatment groups were assessed on the vocabulary and retell probes a third time 2 months after the completion of treatment. The NT group was not administered the maintenance probe at this time because this group started treatment immediately after their posttest. Progress over the three test times (Time 1 = pretest, Time 2 = posttest,
Time 3 = 2 months postcompletion) was assessed by means of repeated measures ANOVAs, with Time as the within-subjects factor and Group (MT and BT) as the between-subjects factor. For the receptive vocabulary probe, there was a significant effect of Time, F(2, 32) = 97.734, p = .000, h2 = .859. No other effects were significant. Post hoc tests (Fisher LSD) revealed a significant increase in scores from Time 1 to Time 2, and from Time 1 to Time 3, …show more content…
The same pattern was obtained for the expressive vocabulary probe, with a significant effect of Time, F(2, 34) = 98.694, p = .000, h2 = .853. Post hoc tests revealed the same pattern as for the receptive vocabulary probe. For story retell as well, the only significant effect was that of Time, F(2, 28) =
18.745, p = .000, h2 = .572. Post hoc tests revealed a different pattern than the vocabulary probes: No significant change in scores was seen between Time 1 and Time 2 or between Time 2 and Time 3 (although Time 2 to Time 3 approached significance at p = .071). A significant change occurred between Time 1 and Time 3 ( p = .009). The Time ×
Group interaction approached significance ( p = .055).
The increase from Time 1 to Time 3 was somewhat larger for the BT group (41.9% to 74.1%) than for the MT group
(53.1% to 67.6%), although not sufficiently large to produce a significant result.
Pre- and Posttest Scores on