Sample Length Affects the Reliability of Language Sample Measures in 3-Year-Olds: Evidence From Parent-Elicited Conversational Samples

Guo, Ling Yu; Eisenberg, Sarita

doi:10.1044/2015_lshss-14-0052

Cited by 36 publications

(17 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(2009) suggested that natural language samples “will typically be at least 30 minutes in length” (p. 645), whereas APPL guidelines suggest a minimum duration of at least 20 min (>30 if possible), with at least 50 spontaneous utterances if feasible based on the child’s developmental level. This is consistent with research showing that relatively short natural language samples can provide reliable information about key language skills (see Guo & Eisenberg, 2015) and increases efficiency of natural language sample collection and transcription when a clinician considers samples shorter than 30 min to be appropriate. Finally, the APPL includes more detailed guidelines regarding calculation of mean length of utterance than are provided by Tager-Flusberg et al.…”

Section: Development Of the Assessment Of Phase Of Preschool Languagesupporting

confidence: 89%

The Assessment of Phase of Preschool Language: Applying the language benchmarks framework to characterize language profiles and change in four- to five-year-olds with autism spectrum disorder

Flanagan

Smith

Davidson

2019

Autism & Developmental Language Impairments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and aims We introduce the Assessment of Phase of Preschool Language (APPL), a rating form that characterizes children’s language according to a well-established framework recommended by Tager-Flusberg et al. (2009). The language benchmarks framework defines children’s language as falling at one of the Pre-verbal, First Words, Word Combinations, Sentences, or Complex Language phases for phonology, vocabulary, grammar, pragmatics, and overall language. The APPL is a flexible assessment tool that allows assessors to determine language phase using a range of assessment sources: natural language samples, standardized measures, and/or parent rating forms. Using the APPL, we examined language profiles in four- and five-year-olds with autism spectrum disorder and explored language development during a community-based Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Intervention program. Methods Community speech-language pathologists completed the APPL with 95 four- and five-year-olds at the beginning of the treatment. The APPL was re-administered after a mean of 10 months of intervention (SD = 2 months) for 46 of these children. Children received treatment for up to 15 h per week in their homes and/or community childcare centers. Pivotal Response Treatment was the main form of intervention. The Picture Exchange Communication System or other augmentative and alternative communication systems were also used with many pre-verbal children. Results At the beginning of intervention, the most common language phase was Word Combinations (44%), followed by Pre-verbal (26%), Sentences (20%), and then First Words (10%). Only 24% of children had even profiles (i.e. phonology, vocabulary, grammar, and pragmatics skills at the same level). Phonology was a common area of relative strength, and pragmatics was a common area of relative weakness. Ten months of intervention was associated with gains in overall language phase for 37% of children. Approximately half gained at least one phase in Grammar (57%), Vocabulary (51%), and Phonology (46%), while Pragmatics improved for 33%. Gains varied based on initial language phase. Inclusion of skills using augmentative and alternative communication enhanced interpretation of change during intervention. Conclusions Four- and five-year-olds with autism spectrum disorder in this sample tended to have uneven skills across expressive language domains. Community-based Naturalistic Developmental Behavioral Intervention was associated with gains in language phase in older preschoolers with autism spectrum disorder. Gains varied across language domains and were influenced by initial language phase. Implications The Assessment of Phase of Preschool Language is a useful tool to support consistent application of the language benchmarks framework. It is important to consider all language domains when characterizing language skills and treatment impact in children with autism spectrum disorder.

show abstract

Section: Development Of the Assessment Of Phase Of Preschool Languagesupporting

confidence: 89%

The Assessment of Phase of Preschool Language: Applying the language benchmarks framework to characterize language profiles and change in four- to five-year-olds with autism spectrum disorder

Flanagan

Smith

Davidson

2019

Autism & Developmental Language Impairments

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, applying the 100-utterance criterion to the current study would have excluded over 70% of the participant sample at each time point, producing results that were generalizable only to the subgroup of children with ASD with relatively good language and communication skills. A recent study of typically developing children found good internal consistency for MLU across language samples lasting only 1, 3, and 7 min (Heilmann, Nockerts, & Miller, 2010), and a study of 3-year-old children with a range of language abilities found acceptable reliability for NDW and a measure of grammatical complexity for samples between 7 and 10 min (Guo & Eisenberg, 2015). In addition, recent research assessing spoken language in young children with ASD derived MLU from approximately 30 utterances (Kover, Davidson, Sindberg, & Ellis Weismer, 2014).…”

Section: Parent-child Language Samplesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parent Telegraphic Speech Use and Spoken Language in Preschoolers With ASD

Venker

Bolt

Meyer

et al. 2015

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose There is considerable controversy regarding whether to use telegraphic or grammatical input when speaking to young children with language delays, including children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD). This study examined telegraphic speech use in parents of preschoolers with ASD and associations with children's spoken language 1 year later. Method Parent–child dyads ( n = 55) participated when children were, on average, 3 (Time 1) and 4 years old (Time 2). The rate at which parents omitted obligatory determiners was derived from transcripts of parent–child play sessions; measures of children's spoken language were obtained from these same transcripts. Results Telegraphic speech use varied substantially across parents. Higher rates of parent determiner omissions at Time 1 were significantly associated with lower lexical diversity in children's spoken language at Time 2, even when controlling for children's baseline lexical diversity and nonverbal IQ. Findings from path analyses supported the directionality of effects assumed in our regression analyses, although these results should be interpreted with caution due to the limited sample size. Conclusions Telegraphic input may have a negative impact on language development in young children with ASD. Future experimental research is needed to directly investigate how telegraphic input affects children's language learning and processing.

show abstract

“…Parents were also asked whether their child had received a diagnosis of a neurodevelopmental disorder, such as autism spectrum disorder or cerebral palsy, and whether their child understood or spoke more than one language. The play protocol, drawn from previous studies of conversational language ability, involved presenting the child with a standard set of toys (foam blocks and a farm set) and two popular children's books (DeThorne, Deater-Deckard, Mahurin-Smith, Coletto, & Petrill, 2011;Guo & Eisenberg, 2015;Rice, Redmond, & Hoffman, 2006). Clinicians were instructed to follow the child's lead in play and conversation; engage in parallel talk and "glossing" (repeating back the child's utterances to facilitate transcription); and minimize the use of corrections, yes/no, and wh-questions (DeThorne et al, 2011; Guo & Eisenberg, 2015;Rice et al, 2006).…”

Section: Three-year Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Approximately 20 min of play were recorded to allow the participants 10 min to "warm up." Conversational language was analyzed in the second 10-min segment-a sample length that has been found to be effective in assessing the language of 3-year-old children (Guo & Eisenberg, 2015). For samples of 20 min or more, the second 10 min of the sample was transcribed.…”

Section: Three-year Data Collectionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conversational Language in 3-Year-Old Children Born Very Preterm and at Term

Sánchez

Spittle

Boyce

et al. 2020

J Speech Lang Hear Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose Language difficulties are prevalent among children born preterm. Existing studies have largely used standardized language tests, providing limited scope for detailed descriptive examination of preterm language. This study aimed to examine differences in conversational language between children born < 30 weeks and at term as well as correlations between language sample analysis (LSA) and a standardized language tool. Method Two hundred four 3-year-olds (103 born < 30 weeks, 101 born at term) recruited at birth provided a 10-min language sample and completed the Preschool Language Scales–Fifth Edition (I. Zimmerman, Steiner, & Pond, 2011). LSA was conducted using the Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts and Index of Productive Syntax. Group differences were analyzed using linear regression, and Pearson correlation coefficient (coef) was used to determine correlations between measures. Results Children born < 30 weeks scored lower than term-born peers on multiple metrics when controlled for confounding factors (sex, high social risk, multilingualism, and diagnosed neurodevelopmental disorders), including mean length of utterance in morphemes (coef = –0.28, 95% confidence interval [CI] [–0.56, 0.01]) and words (coef = –0.29, 95% CI [–0.53, –0.05]), number of different word roots (coef = –10.04, 95% CI [–17.93, –2.14]), and Index of Productive Syntax sentence structures (coef = –1.81, 95% CI [–3.10, –0.52]). Other variables (e.g., number of utterances, number of nouns and adjectives) were not significantly different between groups. LSA and the Preschool Language Scales–Fifth Edition were at most moderately correlated (≤ .45). Conclusions Three-year-old children born preterm demonstrated poorer conversational language than children born at term, with some specific areas of deficit emerging. Furthermore, formal assessment and LSA appear to provide relatively distinct and yet complementary data to guide diagnostic and intervention decisions. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.11368073

show abstract

Sample Length Affects the Reliability of Language Sample Measures in 3-Year-Olds: Evidence From Parent-Elicited Conversational Samples

Cited by 36 publications

References 55 publications

The Assessment of Phase of Preschool Language: Applying the language benchmarks framework to characterize language profiles and change in four- to five-year-olds with autism spectrum disorder

The Assessment of Phase of Preschool Language: Applying the language benchmarks framework to characterize language profiles and change in four- to five-year-olds with autism spectrum disorder

Parent Telegraphic Speech Use and Spoken Language in Preschoolers With ASD

Conversational Language in 3-Year-Old Children Born Very Preterm and at Term

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About