Guidebook

Nuffield Early Language Intervention (20 weeks)

The Nuffield Early Language Intervention (NELI) (20 weeks) is a schools-based intervention for children aged 4 to 6 years with poor language skills. It is delivered by trained teaching assistants to children for a period of 20 weeks, with the aim of improving children’s vocabulary, narrative skills, listening, and independent speaking.

The information above is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.

Population characteristics as evaluated

4 to 6 years old

Level of need: Targeted-indicated
Race and ethnicities: White British

Model characteristics

Individual, Group

Setting: Primary school
Workforce: Trained teaching assistant
Full evidence description (PDF)
View programme website
Evidence rating:
Cost rating:

Child outcomes:

  • Enhancing school achievement & employment
    • Improved early literacy
    • Improved speech, language and communication

UK available

UK tested

Published: April 2025
Last reviewed: January 2021

Model description

The Nuffield Early Language Intervention (NELI) (20 weeks) is a schools-based intervention for children aged 4 to 6 years with poor language skills. It is delivered by trained teaching assistants to children for a period of 20 weeks, with the aim of improving children’s vocabulary, narrative skills, listening, and independent speaking. It can be delivered in preschool or reception class.

A trained teaching assistant delivers sessions daily for 20 weeks, comprising three 30-minute group sessions (to groups of three to five children) and two 15-minute individual sessions each week.

Children develop their vocabulary and language skills within a structured framework that follows established principles for teaching listening, vocabulary, and narrative. In the second half of the intervention, activities promoting phonological awareness and letter-sound knowledge are introduced. Narrative work gives children the opportunity to practise taught vocabulary in connected speech and introduces them to key story elements and the sequencing of events while encouraging expressive language and grammatical competence.

Age of child

4 to 6 years

Target population

Children starting school with poor language skills

Disclaimer: The information in this section is as offered/supported by the intervention provider.

Why?

Science-based assumption

Delays in early language development, including reduced vocabulary and expressive language skills, can persist throughout school and negatively impact academic achievement.

Science-based assumption

Early language development is an important part of children’s ability to learn at school, including learning to read, and contributes to social and emotional development.

Who?

Science-based assumption

Children with poor language are less able to engage in learning at school and may experience psycho-social difficulties.

How?

Intervention

The mixture of small group and individual sessions focus on improving children’s vocabulary, developing narrative skills, encouraging active listening, and building confidence in independent speaking.

What?

Short-term

Improved child receptive and expressive language

Improved reading.

Medium-term

Increased learning at school

Reduced social and emotional difficulties.

Long-term

Increased child school achievement.

Who is eligible?

Children starting school with poor language skills.

How is it delivered?

NELI (20 weeks) is delivered by a trained teaching assistant in 100 sessions, comprising three 30-minute group sessions and two 15-minute individual sessions each week to groups of three to five children.

What happens during the intervention?

  • The mixture of small group and individual sessions focus on improving children’s vocabulary, developing narrative skills, encouraging active listening, and building confidence in independent speaking
  • In the second half of the intervention, activities promoting phonological awareness and letter-sound knowledge are introduced
  • Children develop their vocabulary and language skills within a structured framework that follows established principles for teaching listening, vocabulary, and narrative
  • Narrative work gives children the opportunity to practise taught vocabulary in connected speech and introduces them to key story elements and the sequencing of events while encouraging expressive language and grammatical competence.

Who can deliver it?

The practitioner who delivers this intervention is a trained teaching assistant.

What are the training requirements?

The practitioners have two days of intervention training. Booster training of practitioners is not required.

How are the practitioners supervised?

Practitioner supervision is not required.

What are the systems for maintaining fidelity?

Intervention fidelity is maintained through the following processes:

  • Training manual
  • Other printed material
  • Face-to-face training.

Is there a licensing requirement?

No

Contact details*

Contact person: Professor Charles Hulme
Organisation: University of Oxford
Email address: info@oxedandassessment.com
Website: https://www.teachneli.org

*Please note that this information may not be up to date. In this case, please visit the listed intervention website for up to date contact details.

NELI (20 weeks)’s most rigorous evidence comes from two RCTs conducted in the UK consistent with Foundations’ Level 3 evidence strength threshold. These found significant improvements in children’s language and word reading, compared to a control group.

NELI (20 weeks) can be described as evidence-based: it has evidence from at least one rigorously conducted RCT or QED demonstrating a statistically significant positive impact on at least one child outcome, as well as at least one more RCT or QED.

Child outcomes

Improved oral language post-intervention

Improvement index

+8

Interpretation

Increase in oral language ability (measured using a composite of vocabulary, grammar, and listening scales) This means we would expect the average participant in the comparison group who did not receive the intervention (i.e. someone for whom 50% of their peers have better outcomes and 50% have worse outcomes), to improve to the point where they would have better outcomes than 58% and worse outcomes than 42% of their peers, if they had received the intervention.

Study

1, 2

Improved oral language at 6-month follow-up

Improvement index

+8

Interpretation

Increase in oral language ability (measured using a composite of vocabulary, grammar, and listening scales) This means we would expect the average participant in the comparison group who did not receive the intervention (i.e. someone for whom 50% of their peers have better outcomes and 50% have worse outcomes), to improve to the point where they would have better outcomes than 58% and worse outcomes than 42% of their peers, if they had received the intervention.

Study

1

Improved taught vocabulary post-intervention

Improvement index

+35

Interpretation

3.22-point improvement on the picture naming task This means we would expect the average participant in the comparison group who did not receive the intervention (i.e. someone for whom 50% of their peers have better outcomes and 50% have worse outcomes), to improve to the point where they would have better outcomes than 85% and worse outcomes than 15% of their peers, if they had received the intervention.

Study

1

Improved taught vocabulary at 6-month follow-up

Improvement index

+23

Interpretation

1.94-point improvement on the picture naming task This means we would expect the average participant in the comparison group who did not receive the intervention (i.e. someone for whom 50% of their peers have better outcomes and 50% have worse outcomes), to improve to the point where they would have better outcomes than 73% and worse outcomes than 27% of their peers, if they had received the intervention.

Study

1

Improved taught vocabulary post-intervention

Improvement index

+17

Interpretation

1.67-point improvement on the definition asking task This means we would expect the average participant in the comparison group who did not receive the intervention (i.e. someone for whom 50% of their peers have better outcomes and 50% have worse outcomes), to improve to the point where they would have better outcomes than 67% and worse outcomes than 33% of their peers, if they had received the intervention.

Study

1

Improved taught vocabulary at 6-month follow-up

Improvement index

+12

Interpretation

1.17-point improvement on the definition asking task This means we would expect the average participant in the comparison group who did not receive the intervention (i.e. someone for whom 50% of their peers have better outcomes and 50% have worse outcomes), to improve to the point where they would have better outcomes than 62% and worse outcomes than 38% of their peers, if they had received the intervention.

Study

1

Improved early reading

Improvement index

Not available

Interpretation

Not available

Study

2

Search and review

Identified in search4
Studies reviewed3
Meeting the L2 threshold1
Meeting the L3 threshold2
Contributing to the L4 threshold0
Ineligible1

Study 1

Study designRCT
CountryUK
Sample characteristics

394 children with an average age of 3.8 years, with low-average standardised language scores

Race, ethnicities, and nationalities

66% White-British

Population risk factors
  • 28% of the sample were eligible for free school meals
  • 38% of the sample were at the 10th centile or lower in screening tests, meaning that a high proportion of the sample had clinically significant language difficulties, and 13% had special educational needs.
Timing
  • Baseline
  • Post-intervention
  • 6-month follow-up.
Child outcomes
  • Improved oral language
  • Improved taught vocabulary.
Other outcomes

None

Study rating3
Citations

Study 1a: Fricke, S., Burgoyne, K., Bowyer-Crane, C., Kyriacou, M., Zosimodou, A., Maxwell, L., Lervåg, A., Snowling, M. J. & Hulme, C. (2017) The efficacy of early language intervention in mainstream school settings: A randomized control trial. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 58, 10, 1141–1151.

Study 1b: Sibieta, L., Kotecha, M. & Skipp, A. (2016) Nuffield Early Language Intervention: Evaluation report and executive summary. Education Endowment Foundation

Study 2

Study designCluster RCT
CountryUK
Sample characteristics

1,156 children aged 4 to 5 years with poor oral language skills across 193 schools in 13 geographical regions in England

Race, ethnicities, and nationalities

Not reported

Population risk factors

34% of pupils in participating schools were eligible for free school meals

Timing

Post-test

Child outcomes
  • Improved oral language
  • Improved early reading.
Other outcomes

None

Study rating3
Citations

Dimova, S., Ilie, S., Brown, E. R., Broeks, M., Culora, A. & Sutherland, A. (2020) The Nuffield Early Language Intervention: Evaluation report.

The following studies were identified for this intervention but did not count towards the intervention’s overall evidence rating. An intervention receives the same rating as its most robust study or studies.

Bowyer‐Crane, C., Snowling, M. J., Duff, F. & Fieldsend, E. (2008) Improving early language and literacy skills: Differential effects of an oral language versus a phonology with reading intervention. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry. 49, 4, 422–432. This study received a Level 2 rating.

Haley, A., Hulme, C., Bowyer-Crane, C., Snowling, M. J. & Fricke, S. (2017) Oral language skills intervention in pre-school: A cautionary tale. International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders. 52, 71–79. This reference refers to a randomised control trial, conducted in the UK.

Note on provider involvement: This provider has agreed to Foundations’ terms of reference (or the Early Intervention Foundation's terms of reference), and the assessment has been conducted and published with the full cooperation of the intervention provider.

Alliance House
Third Floor
12 Caxton Street
Westminster
London
SW1H 0QS
Linkedin
About Us
Our Strategy
Priority Areas
Our Team
Join our team
EDIE
Our Partners
Our Work
Publications
Tools
Current Projects
RPC Hub
Opportunities
Funding
Other Opportunities
News & Blogs
Events & Webinars
Press
Contact
Terms & Conditions
Privacy Policy
Data Archive
Foundations 2023. Foundations, the national What Works Centre for Children & Families is a company limited by guarantee registered in England and Wales with company number 12136703 and charity number 1188350.

Cost ratings:

Rated 1: Set up and delivery is low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of less than £100.

Rated 2: Set up and delivery is medium-low cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £100–£499.

Rated 3: Set up and delivery is medium cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £500–£999.

Rated 4: Set up and delivery is medium-high cost, equivalent to an estimated unit cost of £1,000–£2,000.

Rating 5: Set up and delivery is high cost. Equivalent to an estimated unit cost of more than £2,000.

Set up and delivery cost is not applicable, not available, or has not been calculated.

Click here for more information.

Child Outcomes:

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus.

Supporting children’s mental health and wellbeing: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing child maltreatment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Enhancing school achievement & employment: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing crime, violence and antisocial behaviour: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing substance abuse: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing risky sexual behaviour & teen pregnancy: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Preventing obesity and promoting healthy physical development: Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetuer adipiscing elit. Aenean commodo ligula eget dolor. Aenean massa. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient.

Evidence ratings:

Rated 2: Has preliminary evidence of improving a child outcome from a quantitative impact study, but there is not yet evidence of causal impact.

Rated 2+: Meets the level 2 rating and the best available evidence is based on a study which is more rigorous than a level 2 standard but does not meet the level 3 standard.

Rated 3: Has evidence of a short-term positive impact from at least one rigorous study.

Rated 3+: Meets the level 3 rating and has evidence from other studies with a comparison group at level 2 or higher.

Rated 4: Has evidence of a long-term positive impact through at least two rigorous studies.

Rated 4+: Meets the level 4 rating and has at least a third study contributing to the Level 4 rating, with at least one of the studies conducted independently of the intervention provider.

Rating has a *: The evidence base includes mixed findings i.e., studies suggesting positive impact alongside studies, which on balance, indicate no effect or negative impact.

Click here for more information.