{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0022222222222222222, 'mean_word_length': 6.446280991735537, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Acceptability ratings of language interventions and reasoning as described by early childhood special education teachers

This study utilised a structured analogue method to evaluate factors which impact preschool teachers’ preference for language interventions. These factors included type of treatment approach (naturalistic versus therapeutic), person delivering the intervention (classroom teacher versus speech and language pathologist), and severity of language delay (mild versus severe). Survey participants included 29 preschool special education teachers, five of whom volunteered to complete follow-up interviews. Results demonstrate that teachers prefer naturalistic over therapeutic approaches overall. When stratified by severity of the language delay, teachers rated the three intervention approaches differently. Implications of these findings for research and practice are discussed.