Updated on
June 13, 2026
A practical guide for teachers and SENCOs on using Language Link to identify and support learners with Speech, Language and Communication Needs (SLCN) in primary schools.
For busy teachers, spotting a quiet learner who is struggling to understand is one of the biggest challenges. Outwardly, they may seem well-behaved or simply shy. Inwardly, they may be missing crucial instructions and falling behind. Language Link is a digital package designed to bring these hidden difficulties to light. It provides a standardised assessment and intervention framework to help primary schools identify and support learners with underlying receptive language needs, directly in the classroom.
This guide explains what Language Link is, how it works, and how to use its results to create effective support within a graduated SEND approach.
Language Link is a comprehensive assessment and intervention package designed for primary schools. Its primary function is to identify learners with potential receptive language difficulties, that is, problems with understanding spoken language. It is not designed to assess speech production (articulation), which is the focus of its sister programme, Speech Link.
The package is built for whole-class or targeted screening, enabling schools to quickly get a baseline of language comprehension skills across a year group. Following the assessment, it provides detailed reports and a suite of planned interventions for teachers and teaching assistants (TAs) to deliver.
Language Link is a screening tool, not a diagnostic one. It flags learners who are at risk of having a language difficulty. A formal diagnosis of a Developmental Language Disorder (DLD) can only be made by a qualified Speech and Language Therapist (SaLT). The results from Language Link provide valuable evidence for a referral, but they do not replace the need for specialist assessment.
Children with speech, language and communication needs (SLCN) are at significant risk of facing challenges in learning and behaviour (Feltner et al., 2024). Difficulties with oral language are a primary cause of later problems with reading comprehension and academic progress (Fricke et al., 2012; Rogde et al., 2019).
Many learners become experts at masking their difficulties. They might be highly articulate in social situations or copy their peers to follow instructions. This can lead teachers to misinterpret a lack of comprehension as defiance, poor attention or a lack of cooperation.
A learner struggling with receptive language might:
Universal screening is vital because it provides objective data that can uncover these hidden gaps, moving beyond behavioural labels to identify the underlying need.
The Language Link package is a cyclical process of assessment, planning, intervention and review, designed to fit within the UK's graduated approach to SEND.
The process begins with an online assessment. This is typically carried out with a whole class, with learners wearing headphones and listening to instructions. The assessment is gamified and interactive, designed to be engaging for young learners. It automatically adapts to the learner's ability, taking around 15-20 minutes to complete.
The assessment standardises the process, ensuring every child receives the same instructions in the same way, removing potential bias from adult delivery.
Once the assessment is complete, the software instantly generates reports. These reports typically use a Red, Amber, Green (RAG) rating system to indicate each learner's level of need compared to their peers.
These reports provide a clear starting point for discussion between the class teacher, SENCO, and parents.
Based on the assessment results, Language Link provides a bank of resources.
Let's consider a Year 5 Science class investigating thermal insulation. The teacher has used Junior Language Link and identified 'Leo' as a learner with low-average receptive language skills. He often masks his comprehension gaps by copying his peers.
The Ineffective Approach (High Language Demand): The teacher gives a multi-step verbal instruction: "First, wrap each of the beakers in the different materials, then use the thermometer to record the starting temperature on your sheet, and after ten minutes, record the finishing temperature before writing a conclusion to explain which was the most efficient insulator and why."
Leo is immediately overloaded. He hears the first part ("wrap the beakers") and the last part ("most efficient insulator") but misses the steps in between. He watches his partner and copies what they do, completing the task without understanding the scientific reasoning.
Download a one-page study note for Language Link, with the key ideas, limitations and classroom links in one place.
The Language Link-Informed Approach (Scaffolded): The teacher knows Leo's profile and adapts her language and resources.
This scaffolded sequence allows Leo to access the science curriculum. He is not reliant on copying and can engage with the cognitive work of the lesson: explaining, justifying and providing evidence. The intervention shifts him from passive imitation to active reasoning.
Oral language skills are foundational to educational success (West et al., 2021; Fricke et al., 2012). Evidence suggests that early language interventions can be effective when delivered at scale (West et al., 2021) and that intensive, small-group support can improve language and literacy development (Phillips et al., 2021). Oral language support can be effective even in the late primary years (Esposito et al., 2024).
However, it is crucial for schools to use screening tools like Language Link responsibly.
It is a common point of confusion, but the two packages are designed for different purposes.
| Feature | Language Link | Speech Link |
|---|---|---|
| Focus | Understanding of language (receptive) | Production of speech sounds (articulation/phonology) |
| Identifies | Learners who struggle to understand words, concepts, and instructions. | Learners who have difficulty saying specific sounds or words clearly. |
| Example | A learner who can't follow a 3-part instruction. | A learner who says "wabbit" instead of "rabbit". |
| Intervention | Focuses on vocabulary, concepts, and sentence structure. | Focuses on exercises to produce specific speech sounds. |
A learner can have difficulties in one area, or both. The two packages are complementary and provide a comprehensive overview of a learner's speech and language profile.
To ensure Language Link is used effectively and responsibly:
Research Evidence Check
What is the evidence that school language screening followed by targeted classroom intervention improves language comprehension outcomes?
Promising support: The Consensus search found relevant papers, but the evidence should be treated as emerging and checked carefully against the article claims.
Use the approach as an explicit routine: model the target skill, give guided practice, build in repetition, and check whether pupils can use it beyond the intervention session.
Young people who fail to develop language as expected face significant challenges in all aspects of life. Unfortunately, language disorders are common, either as a distinct condition (e.g., Developmental Language Disorder) or as a part of another neurodevelopmental condition (e.g., autism). Finding ways to attenuate language problems through intervention has the potential to yield great benefits not only for the individual but also for society as a whole. This meta-analytic review examined the effect of oral language interventions for children with neurodevelopmental disorders. The last electronic search was conducted in April 2022. Intervention studies had to target language skills for children from 2 to 18 years of age with Developmental Language Disorder, autism, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, and Williams syndrome in randomised controlled trials or quasi-experimental designs. Control groups had to include business-as-usual, waiting list, passive or active conditions. However, we excluded studies in which the active control group received a different type, delivery, or dosage of another language intervention. Eligible interventions implemented explicit and structured activities (i.e., explicit instruction of vocabulary, narrative structure or grammatical rules) and/or implicit and broad activities (i.e., shared book reading, general language stimulation). The intervention studies had to assess language skills in receptive and/or expressive modalities. The search provided 8195 records after deduplication. Records were screened by title and abstract, leading to full-text examinations of 448 records. We performed Correlated and Hierarchical Effects models and ran a retrospective power analysis via simulation. Publication bias was assessed via-curve and precision-effect estimate. We examined 38 studies, with 46 group comparisons and 108 effects comparing pre-/post-tests and eight studies, with 12 group comparisons and 21 effects at follow-up. The results showed a mean effect size of = 0.27 at the post-test and = 0.18 at follow-up. However, there was evidence of publication bias and overestimation of the mean effects. Effects from the meta-analysis were significantly related to these elements: (1) receptive vocabulary and omnibus receptive measures showed smaller effect sizes relative to expressive vocabulary, grammar, expressive and receptive discourse, and omnibus expressive tests; and (2) the length of the intervention, where longer sessions conducted over a longer period of time were more beneficial than brief sessions and short-term interventions. Neither moderators concerning participants' characteristics (children's diagnosis, diagnostic status, age, sex, and non-verbal cognitive ability and severity of language impairment), nor those regarding of the treatment components and implementation of the language interventions (intervention content, setting, delivery agent, session structure of the intervention or total number of sessions) reached significance. The same occurred to indicators of study quality. The risk of bias assessment showed that reporting quality for the studies examined in the review was poor. In sum, the current evidence base is promising but inconclusive. Pre-registration and replication of more robust and adequately powered trials, which include a wider range of diagnostic conditions, together with more long-term follow-up comparisons, are needed to drive evidence-based practice and policy.
Classroom implication: Use this as a caution: check learner fit, delivery quality and progress data before treating the approach as settled practice.
The main aim of the systematic review and meta-analysis was to evaluate the effectiveness of language interventions for school-aged children who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing (DHH). We focused on studies targeting meaning-based aspects of language, such as vocabulary, grammar, and narrative skills. We included randomized controlled trials and quasi-experiments with a control group and a pre-post design. A secondary aim was to describe the characteristics of effective interventions identified in the systematic review. The review was preregistered in PROSPERO (ID CRD42021236085). We searched 10 academic databases for peer-reviewed journal articles reporting language interventions for children who are DHH aged 6-12 years. We assessed the quality of included studies using Critical Appraisal Skills Programme checklists. A meta-analysis was conducted on the overall effect of interventions. In addition, we calculated separate effect sizes for vocabulary and morphosyntactic knowledge. We identified 14 studies totaling 794 children. Quality assessment revealed concerns of risk of bias in most studies because study characteristics were not comprehensively reported. The meta-analyses of language interventions revealed a large main effect of= 0.79Subdomain analyses revealed similar effects for morphosyntactic knowledge= 0.81 and vocabulary= 0.71. Few high-quality studies examine the effects of language interventions for children who are DHH. However, the studies that exist reveal robust effects, especially for morphosyntactic abilities. Intervention approaches were diverse, and the largest intervention effects were found in studies with a randomized controlled design and near-transfer outcome measures closely aligned with the intervention content. Future studies should adhere to established guidelines for reporting results from controlled experimental study designs.
Classroom implication: Translate the finding into explicit modelling, guided practice and progress monitoring rather than relying on one-off exposure.
Children with speech and language difficulties are at risk for learning and behavioral problems. To review the evidence on screening for speech and language delay or disorders in children 5 years or younger to inform the US Preventive Services Task Force. PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, PsycInfo, ERIC, Linguistic and Language Behavior Abstracts (ProQuest), and trial registries through January 17, 2023; surveillance through November 24, 2023. English-language studies of screening test accuracy, trials or cohort studies comparing screening vs no screening; randomized clinical trials (RCTs) of interventions. Dual review of abstracts, full-text articles, study quality, and data extraction; results were narratively summarized. Screening test accuracy, speech and language outcomes, school performance, function, quality of life, and harms. Thirty-eight studies in 41 articles were included (N = 9006). No study evaluated the direct benefits of screening vs no screening. Twenty-one studies (n = 7489) assessed the accuracy of 23 different screening tools that varied with regard to whether they were designed to be completed by parents vs trained examiners, and to screen for global (any) language problems vs specific skills (eg, expressive language). Three studies assessing parent-reported tools for expressive language skills found consistently high sensitivity (range, 88%-93%) and specificity (range, 88%-85%). The accuracy of other screening tools varied widely. Seventeen RCTs (n = 1517) evaluated interventions for speech and language delay or disorders, although none enrolled children identified by routine screening in primary care. Two RCTs evaluating relatively intensive parental group training interventions (11 sessions) found benefit for different measures of expressive language skills, and 1 evaluating a less intensive intervention (6 sessions) found no difference between groups for any outcome. Two RCTs (n = 76) evaluating the Lidcombe Program of Early Stuttering Intervention delivered by speech-language pathologists featuring parent training found a 2.3% to 3.0% lower proportion of syllables stuttered at 9 months compared with the control group when delivered in clinic and via telehealth, respectively. Evidence on other interventions was limited. No RCTs reported on the harms of interventions. No studies directly assessed the benefits and harms of screening. Some parent-reported screening tools for expressive language skills had reasonable accuracy for detecting expressive language delay. Group parent training programs for speech delay that provided at least 11 parental training sessions improved expressive language skills, and a stuttering intervention delivered by speech-language pathologists reduced stuttering frequency.
Classroom implication: Translate the finding into explicit modelling, guided practice and progress monitoring rather than relying on one-off exposure.
It is well established that oral language skills provide a critical foundation for formal education. This study evaluated the effectiveness of the Nuffield Early Language Intervention (NELI) programme in ameliorating language difficulties in the first year of school when delivered at scale. We conducted a cluster randomized controlled trial (RCT) in 193 primary schools (containing 238 Reception classrooms). Schools were randomly allocated to either a 20-week oral language intervention or a business-as-usual control group. All classes (N = 5,879 children) in participating schools were screened by school staff using an automated App to assess children's oral language skills. Screening identified 1,173 children as eligible for language intervention: schools containing 571 of these children were allocated to the control group and 569 to the intervention group. Children receiving the NELI programme made significantly larger gains than the business-as-usual control group on a latent variable reflecting standardized measures of language ability (d = .26) and on the school-administered automated assessment of receptive and expressive language skills (d = .32). The effects of intervention did not vary as a function of home language background or gender. This study provides strong evidence for the effectiveness of a school-based language intervention programme (NELI) delivered at scale. These findings demonstrate that language difficulties can be identified by school-based testing and ameliorated by a TA delivered intervention; this has important implications for educational and social policy.
Classroom implication: Keep the intervention routine structured and measurable so classroom use can be compared with baseline performance.
Oral language skills in the preschool and early school years are critical to educational success and provide the foundations for the later development of reading comprehension. In a randomized controlled trial, 180 children from 15 UK nursery schools (n = 12 from each setting; M(age) = 4;0) were randomly allocated to receive a 30-week oral language intervention or to a waiting control group. Children in the intervention group received 30 weeks of oral language intervention, beginning in nursery (preschool), in three group sessions per week, continuing with daily sessions on transition to Reception class (pre-Year 1). The intervention was delivered by nursery staff and teaching assistants trained and supported by the research team. Following screening, children were assessed preintervention, following completion of the intervention and after a 6-month delay. Children in the intervention group showed significantly better performance on measures of oral language and spoken narrative skills than children in the waiting control group immediately after the 30 week intervention and after a 6 month delay. Gains in word-level literacy skills were weaker, though clear improvements were observed on measures of phonological awareness. Importantly, improvements in oral language skills generalized to a standardized measure of reading comprehension at maintenance test. Early intervention for children with oral language difficulties is effective and can successfully support the skills, which underpin reading comprehension.
Classroom implication: Keep the intervention routine structured and measurable so classroom use can be compared with baseline performance.
Children who begin school with proficient language skills are more likely to develop adequate reading comprehension abilities and achieve academic success than children who struggle with poor language skills in their early years. Individual language difficulties, environmental factors related to socioeconomic status (SES), and having the educational language as a second language are all considered risk factors for language and literacy failure. Intervention programs have been designed with the aim of supporting at‐risk children’s language skills. In these programs, the instructional methods typically include a strong focus on vocabulary instruction within the context of storytelling or text reading. Elements that directly activate narrative and grammatical development are often included. What is the aim of this review? This Campbell systematic review examines the effects of linguistic comprehension instruction on generalized measures of language and reading comprehension skills. The review summarizes evidence from 43 studies, including samples of both preschool and school‐aged participants.
Classroom implication: Translate the finding into explicit modelling, guided practice and progress monitoring rather than relying on one-off exposure.
Abstract The strong association of early language skills to later reading ability suggests that supporting the development of these skills in children who enter school with below average language abilities may lead to stronger literacy development. Despite this, few evidence-based supplemental language interventions exist for school-based implementation. The current paper reports on 2 large-scale randomized trials of 5 small-group, intensive language-focused interventions implemented in preschool and kindergarten settings. After screening on an expressive language measure, 342 preschool children were randomized to either business-as-usual general education or to 1 of 3 10- or 12-week interventions. Comparably, after screening, 905 kindergarten children were randomized to business-as-usual or to 1 of 4 8-12-week interventions. Children were assessed pre- and post-intervention on a battery of distal standardized language, including listening comprehension, and early literacy measures. Results indicated significant impacts for 3 of the 5 interventions in 1 or 2 grades, on at least 1 standardized measure, although none of the interventions directly impacted listening comprehension measures. Implications for supporting language development and for the early prevention of reading comprehension difficulties are discussed.
Classroom implication: Keep the intervention routine structured and measurable so classroom use can be compared with baseline performance.
Oral language skills provide the foundation for formal education, and children may require language support over an extended period of time to maximise their education potential. Most work on language intervention, however, has focussed on the preschool or early school years. Here, we describe the development and evaluation of the Oral Language for Literacy Intervention (OLLI) programme which is designed to support children with weak language skills in the later primary school years. We conducted a randomised control trial in 33 schools (50 classrooms). The language skills of all 8-9 year-old children in each participating classroom (n = 1,423) were assessed using an automated app (LanguageScreen). The six children with the weakest LanguageScreen scores within each classroom (n = 296) were randomly allocated to the intervention (n = 148) or control group (n = 148). The children in the intervention group received the OLLI programme delivered in individual and small group sessions over 20 weeks. Children in the control group received their typical teaching. Children receiving the OLLI programme made significantly larger gains than children in the control group on a preregistered latent variable reflecting standardised measures of oral language ability (d = 0.38) and on a measure of their written expression (d = 0.42). These findings have important implications for improving educational attainment in children in the late primary school years. The OLLI programme is designed to be deliverable at scale and is of relatively low cost.
Classroom implication: Translate the finding into explicit modelling, guided practice and progress monitoring rather than relying on one-off exposure.
Is Language Link a replacement for a Speech and Language Therapist? No. It is a screening and intervention tool. A SaLT is a highly trained professional who can provide a formal diagnosis and specialist therapy for learners with complex needs. Language Link helps schools identify which learners need this specialist support.
How long do the TA-led interventions take? The interventions are designed as a block of sessions, typically running for around 10-12 weeks. Each small group session usually lasts for about 20-30 minutes and is repeated 2-3 times a week.
Can Language Link be used for learners with EAL? Yes, but with caution. The assessment is not standardised for bilingual learners. A low score for an EAL learner may reflect their stage of English acquisition rather than an underlying language disorder. The results should be used alongside a more broader assessment of their language skills in all languages they speak.
Choose one learner in your class who you suspect has difficulty following instructions. Before your next lesson, adapt one activity by creating a simple visual sequence or a sentence starter to scaffold the language. Observe if this small change helps them to engage with the task more independently.
