Language Therapy for Children  icon

Language Therapy for Children

ImagiRation LLC
★ 4.6 (9,582 ratings)
⬇ 1,000,000+ downloads
Est. actual: 1,899,989
Free
Released: Jul 27, 2015
IAP: $69.99 - $199.99 per item
No ads
Rated: Everyone

Signals

4 this week · 1 positive · 1 warning All of this week's signals →
  • 📈Last 7 days +5.4K installs — 48% slower than the week before (+10K) · 576/day since Sep 30
  • 🏆Among Education apps top 1% by installs gained this week (1677 peers growing)
  • ⭐Rating steady at ★ 4.62 since Sep 30
  • 🛠Updates quiet · updated 47 days ago
Installs since launch
0 950K 1.9M 1.9M Jul 27, 2015 today
+19,598 installs · +77 ratings since Sep 30
Update history
9.6.6 Sep 24, 2026 · seen Sep 30, 2026
• THE FIRST AND ONLY LANGUAGE THERAPY APPLICATION SUPPORTED BY CLINICAL DATA: <br>In a 3-year clinical trial of 6,454 children with autism, language score in children who engaged with MITA has increased to levels, which were 120% higher than in children with similar initial evaluations. This difference was statistically significant (p=0.0001). See the journal Healthcare: https://www.mdpi.com/2227-
Only the current version so far — new entries appear as the app ships updates.
Language Therapy for Children  trailer Trailer
Language Therapy for Children  screenshotLanguage Therapy for Children  screenshotLanguage Therapy for Children  screenshotLanguage Therapy for Children  screenshotLanguage Therapy for Children  screenshotLanguage Therapy for Children  screenshotLanguage Therapy for Children  screenshotLanguage Therapy for Children  screenshot

Language Therapy for Children is an education app by ImagiRation LLC with 1,000,000+ downloads (about 1.9M estimated). +5.4K installs in the last 7 days. Rated 4.6 from 9.6K ratings. Released Jul 27, 2015. Install growth, rank history, SDKs and ad networks.

From the store listing: “• THE FIRST AND ONLY LANGUAGE THERAPY APPLICATION SUPPORTED BY CLINICAL DATA: In a 3-year clinical trial of 6,454 children with autism, young children who trained with MITA improved their language score at the end of the trial on average 2.2-times more than similar children who did not use MITA. This difference was…”