Half the children then used the LanguageLinks syntax software, while the others used software that trained
vocabulary. This was done to control for non-specific effects of having opportunities to use a computer. After 10
weeks all subjects were re-tested with the EOWPVT and the DELV. The groups then traded software programs and received
training for another 10 weeks, after which they were again tested. As such, all of the children received training
with both the syntax and the vocabulary programs, but in a different order.
Results
Children’s scores on the expressive morphosyntax test (DELV) were significantly improved at the completion
of the study (t(9)=2.61, p<.03). The more important question, however, was whether these improvements were simply
due to the passage of time or depended on whether a child had received LanguageLinks syntax training. Comparisons
of pre- and post-training scores on the DELV showed that improvements in expressive morphosyntax were significant
when children had been in LanguageLinks syntax training (t(9)=2.53, p<.032) but not when they had been
in vocabulary training (t(9)=.68, n.s.). Clearly, LanguageLinks syntax training per se was associated
with significant improvements in expressive morphosyntax.

Pre- and post-test scores on the DELV morphosyntax production task.
Children’s vocabulary scores improved during the study as well (t(9)=6.19, p<.001), yet this improvement did not depend on which program was being used. Thus, while differential improvements in expressive morphosyntax could clearly be attributed to receptive language training using LanguageLinks, the analogous pattern was not seen with vocabulary training; vocabulary growth during the study was not dependent upon which program was being used.
To summarize, the Clarke School study found that the expressive morphosyntax scores of oral deaf children increased
significantly after using LanguageLinks for 10 weeks, but not after using vocabulary software for a similar
period of time.