Language Sample Analysis and Elicitation Technique Effects in Bilingual Children With and Without Language Impairment

2017 ◽  
Vol 60 (10) ◽  
pp. 2852-2864 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maria Kapantzoglou ◽  
Gerasimos Fergadiotis ◽  
M. Adelaida Restrepo
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Classification Accuracy ◽  
Sentence Length ◽  
Primary Language ◽  
Sample Analysis ◽  
Story Retelling ◽  
Language Sample Analysis ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Primary Language Impairment ◽  
Language Sample

Purpose This study examined whether the language sample elicitation technique (i.e., storytelling and story-retelling tasks with pictorial support) affects lexical diversity (D), grammaticality (grammatical errors per communication unit [GE/CU]), sentence length (mean length of utterance in words [MLUw]), and sentence complexity (subordination index [SI]), which are commonly used indices for diagnosing primary language impairment in Spanish–English-speaking children in the United States. Method Twenty bilingual Spanish–English-speaking children with typical language development and 20 with primary language impairment participated in the study. Four analyses of variance were conducted to evaluate the effect of language elicitation technique and group on D, GE/CU, MLUw, and SI. Also, 2 discriminant analyses were conducted to assess which indices were more effective for story retelling and storytelling and their classification accuracy across elicitation techniques. Results D, MLUw, and SI were influenced by the type of elicitation technique, but GE/CU was not. The classification accuracy of language sample analysis was greater in story retelling than in storytelling, with GE/CU and D being useful indicators of language abilities in story retelling and GE/CU and SI in storytelling. Conclusion Two indices in language sample analysis may be sufficient for diagnosis in 4- to 5-year-old bilingual Spanish–English-speaking children.

Crossing borders: Recognition of Spanish words by English-speaking children with and without language impairment

2004 ◽  
Vol 25 (4) ◽  
pp. 543-564 ◽  
Author(s):  
KATHRYN KOHNERT ◽  
JENNIFER WINDSOR ◽  
RUTH MILLER
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Spoken Word Recognition ◽  
Spoken Word ◽  
Control Group ◽  
Primary Language ◽  
Objective Method ◽  
Only Children ◽  
English Only ◽  
English Speaking ◽  
Primary Language Impairment

We introduce an objective method for classifying phonological overlap between Spanish and English translation equivalents. This method then is exploited to examine spoken word recognition using stimuli with graded levels of phonological overlap. Performance by typical English-only speaking (EO) children and English-only children with primary language impairment (LI) is compared to a control group of bilingual Spanish–English peers (BI). Response time and accuracy separated groups, with the BI group outperforming the EO group, who in turn outperformed the LI group. Children with more severe LI are slower than those with mild LI, and LI severity is significantly correlated with speed. The two groups of monolingual children and the LI subgroups respond in a qualitatively similar way to decreasing phonological overlap.

scholarly journals Synthesizing Information From Language Samples and Standardized Tests in School-Age Bilingual Assessment

2017 ◽  
Vol 48 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-55 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kerry Danahy Ebert ◽  
Giang Pham
Keyword(s):  
Standardized Tests ◽  
Language Impairment ◽  
Test Scores ◽  
Picture Book ◽  
Clinical Implications ◽  
Primary Language ◽  
School Age ◽  
Bilingual Assessment ◽  
Primary Language Impairment ◽  
Language Sample

Purpose Although language samples and standardized tests are regularly used in assessment, few studies provide clinical guidance on how to synthesize information from these testing tools. This study extends previous work on the relations between tests and language samples to a new population—school-age bilingual speakers with primary language impairment—and considers the clinical implications for bilingual assessment. Method Fifty-one bilingual children with primary language impairment completed narrative language samples and standardized language tests in English and Spanish. Children were separated into younger (ages 5;6 [years;months]–8;11) and older (ages 9;0–11;2) groups. Analysis included correlations with age and partial correlations between language sample measures and test scores in each language. Results Within the younger group, positive correlations with large effect sizes indicated convergence between test scores and microstructural language sample measures in both Spanish and English. There were minimal correlations in the older group for either language. Age related to English but not Spanish measures. Conclusions Tests and language samples complement each other in assessment. Wordless picture-book narratives may be more appropriate for ages 5–8 than for older children. We discuss clinical implications, including a case example of a bilingual child with primary language impairment, to illustrate how to synthesize information from these tools in assessment.

Assessing Functional Language in School-Aged Children Using Language Sample Analysis

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (3) ◽  
pp. 622-636
Author(s):  
John Heilmann ◽  
Alexander Tucci ◽  
Elena Plante ◽  
Jon F. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Computer Hardware ◽  
School Age Children ◽  
Functional Language ◽  
School Age ◽  
Clinical Use ◽  
Sample Analysis ◽  
Validity And Reliability ◽  
Language Sample Analysis ◽  
Accuracy And Repeatability ◽  
Language Sample

Purpose The goal of this clinical focus article is to illustrate how speech-language pathologists can document the functional language of school-age children using language sample analysis (LSA). Advances in computer hardware and software are detailed making LSA more accessible for clinical use. Method This clinical focus article illustrates how documenting school-age student's communicative functioning is central to comprehensive assessment and how using LSA can meet multiple needs within this assessment. LSA can document students' meaningful participation in their daily life through assessment of their language used during everyday tasks. The many advances in computerized LSA are detailed with a primary focus on the Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (Miller & Iglesias, 2019). The LSA process is reviewed detailing the steps necessary for computers to calculate word, morpheme, utterance, and discourse features of functional language. Conclusion These advances in computer technology and software development have made LSA clinically feasible through standardized elicitation and transcription methods that improve accuracy and repeatability. In addition to improved accuracy, validity, and reliability of LSA, databases of typical speakers to document status and automated report writing more than justify the time required. Software now provides many innovations that make LSA simpler and more accessible for clinical use. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.12456719

Issues in Language Sample Collection and Analysis With Children Using AAC

2014 ◽  
Vol 23 (2) ◽  
pp. 65-74 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gail Van Tatenhove
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Augmentative And Alternative Communication ◽  
Language Production ◽  
Expressive Language ◽  
Sample Analysis ◽  
Alternative Communication ◽  
Sample Collection ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Language Sample Analysis ◽  
Language Sample

Language sample analysis is considered one of the best methods of evaluating expressive language production in speaking children. However, the practice of language sample collection and analysis is complicated for speech-language pathologists working with children who use augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) devices. This article identifies six issues regarding use of language sample collection and analysis in clinical practice with children who use AAC devices. The purpose of this article is to encourage speech-language pathologists practicing in the area of AAC to utilize language sample collection and analysis as part of ongoing AAC assessment.

scholarly journals Nonword Repetition and Sentence Imitation as Clinical Markers for Primary Language Impairment in bilingual French-English- and English-French-speaking children in Northern Ontario

2017 ◽  
Vol 1 ◽  
pp. 61-69
Author(s):  
Sara Dubreuil-Piché ◽  
Jenna Lachance ◽  
Chantal Mayer-Crittenden
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Theoretical Background ◽  
Target Language ◽  
Nonword Repetition ◽  
Bilingual Children ◽  
Primary Language ◽  
Clinical Markers ◽  
Language Exposure ◽  
Sentence Imitation ◽  
Primary Language Impairment

Studies indicate that nonword repetition and sentence imitation are useful tools when assessing bilingual children. Bilingual children with primary language impairment (PLI) typically score lower on these two tasks than their typically developing counterparts. Studies show that bilingual children are not disadvantaged during nonword repetition if they have limited language exposure. However, since sentence imitation tasks are constructed with words from the target language, it is expected that it would be more influenced by previous language exposure. The goal of this article will be to review the influence of bilingual exposure on both tasks. This review provides the theoretical background for future studies that will compare the accuracy of both tasks when identifying PLI in bilingual children.

The Clinical Utility of Language Samples

2010 ◽  
Vol 17 (1) ◽  
pp. 9-15 ◽  
Author(s):  
Amy Costanza-Smith
Keyword(s):  
Standardized Tests ◽  
Clinical Utility ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Standardized Assessments ◽  
School Age ◽  
Sample Analysis ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Language Sample Analysis ◽  
Language Sample

Abstract Speech-language pathologists typically use standardized assessments to diagnose language disorders. Although standardized tests are important in diagnosing school-age language disorders, the use of language sample analysis should not be ignored. This article summarizes the benefits of language sample analysis and introduces considerations for collecting and analyzing language samples.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document