Intervention focus moderates the association between initial receptive language and language outcomes for toddlers with developmental delay.

This was a secondary, after-the-fact analysis of data from an earlier trial, not a study designed prospectively to test initial receptive language and intervention focus. The children also received other early intervention services, and 87% were receiving individual speech therapy, so the contribution of the study intervention alone cannot be separated. Target vocabulary comprehension was not measured, so the analysis cannot show whether gains in understanding explained the expressive outcomes. Matching and speech-imitation skills were not assessed before intervention, although the groups did not differ on initial language ages. The sample was relatively small, one participant was missing post-intervention language-age data, and the families were volunteers with high parental education and likely at least middle socioeconomic status, so results may not generalise. Interventionists were not blinded to which intervention each child received.

The supplied text does not include a funding or conflict-of-interest declaration. The publication types indicate research support from NIH extramural funding.

Do not conclude that AC-I, AC-O, or SC alone produced better language outcomes overall. The groups did not differ on standard receptive or expressive language ages, and many children also received state-funded early intervention and individual speech therapy, so the contribution of any single component cannot be separated.