Measure What You Treat: Using Language Sample Analysis for Grammatical Outcome Measures in Children With Developmental Language Disorder

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (2) ◽  
pp. 350-363
Author(s):  
John F. Gallagher ◽  
Jill R. Hoover
Keyword(s):  
Outcome Measures ◽  
Progress Monitoring ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Sample Analysis ◽  
Treatment Target ◽  
Language Sample Analysis ◽  
Percent Accuracy ◽  
Language Sample

Purpose Language sample analysis (LSA) is commonly used to monitor progress for children with language disorders (Pavelko et al., 2016). For children with grammar goals, pediatric speech-language pathologists report mean length of utterance (MLU) and type–token ratio (TTR) as the two LSA measures most commonly used (Finestack & Satterlund, 2018). For focused grammatical intervention, these measures may be ineffective in capturing treatment growth. In this clinical focus article, we provide a preliminary comparison of four measures that could be considered as progress monitoring tools following intervention for one finiteness marker. Method Pre- and posttreatment spontaneous language samples from six children with developmental language disorder who underwent treatment for the third-person singular –s ( –3s ) morpheme were analyzed qualitatively. Four measures are reported: MLU, TTR, percent accuracy of –3s , and Tense and Agreement Productivity score of –3s (cf. Hadley & Short, 2005). Results Increases were most common across participants in measures that examined use of the treatment target (i.e., percent accuracy and Tense and Agreement Productivity score of –3s ). Changes in MLU were not always congruent with measures of the treatment target. Change was mostly not appreciable for TTR. Conclusions For preschool-aged children with developmental language disorder, MLU and TTR may not be effective as the sole outcome measures following treatment of –3s. Our six case studies highlight the benefit of measuring the treated skill as discretely as possible and with multiple measures. More research is needed into the use of LSA for outcome measures in children with language disorders.

scholarly journals Comparing Morphosyntactic Profiles of Children With Developmental Language Disorder or Language Disorder Associated With Autism Spectrum Disorder

2020 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
pp. 714-731
Author(s):  
Timothy Huang ◽  
Lizbeth Finestack
Keyword(s):  
Autism Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Expressive Language ◽  
Autism Spectrum ◽  
Spectrum Disorder ◽  
Language Test ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Sample Analysis ◽  
Language Sample Analysis ◽  
Language Sample

Purpose Previous cross-population comparisons suggest a considerable overlap in the morphosyntactic profiles of children with developmental language disorder (DLD) and children who experience language disorder associated with autism spectrum disorder (LD-ASD). The goal of this study was to further examine and compare the morphosyntactic profiles of the two populations using both standardized, norm-referenced assessments and language sample analysis. Method We used the Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test–Third Edition (Dawson et al., 2003) and the Index of Productive Syntax (in Applied Psycholinguistics, 11 (1), 1990 by Scarborough) to compare the morphosyntactic profiles of 21 children with DLD (5;6–8;1 [years;months]) and 15 children with LD-ASD (4;4–9;8). Results Overall, both groups' morphosyntactic profiles were not significantly different based on the 26 structures assessed by the Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test–Third Edition. Chi-square analyses identified two structures on which the DLD group outperformed the LD-ASD group (i.e., participle and the conjunction “and”). Likewise, the groups' morphosyntactic profiles were not significantly different based on the 56 items assessed by the Index of Productive Syntax. Analyses identified only one structure on which the DLD group outperformed the LD-ASD group (i.e., S8: Infinitive) and four structures on which the LD-ASD group outperformed the DLD group (i.e., Q9: Why/when/which, etc.; Q6: Wh -question with auxiliary, modal, or copula; Q4: Wh -question with verb; and Q2: Routine question). Conclusions Study results suggest that the morphosyntactic profiles of children with DLD and children with LD-ASD are not significantly different. Results also suggest potential weaknesses on forms that have not been the focus of previous studies. It is important for clinicians to assess each of these forms using both standardized assessments and language sample analysis to gain a full understanding of the language profiles of children with DLD or LD-ASD.

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.

Developmental Language Disorder and the Assessment of Spoken Language

2021 ◽  
pp. 155-170
Author(s):  
Carol-Anne Murphy ◽  
Pauline Frizelle ◽  
Cristina McKean
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Best Practice ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Skills ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
Language Abilities ◽  
Language Sample Analysis ◽  
Language Sample

Developmental language disorder (DLD), previously known as specific language impairment (SLI), is a long-term developmental disorder affecting approximately 7.5% of children. Language abilities in children with DLD are variable and can be challenging to ascertain with confidence. This chapter aims to discuss some of the challenges associated with assessing the language skills of children with DLD through an overview of different forms of language assessment including standardized language testing, language sample analysis, and observations. Uses and limitations of the different forms of assessment are considered, bearing in mind the different functions of assessment and the need to gain a full understanding of children’s profiles of strength and weakness and communicative functioning in context. The authors conclude with requirements for best practice in assessment and promising avenues of development in this area.

scholarly journals Language Sample Analysis in Clinical Practice: Speech-Language Pathologists' Barriers, Facilitators, and Needs

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Inge S. Klatte ◽  
Vera van Heugten ◽  
Rob Zwitserlood ◽  
Ellen Gerrits
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Daily Practice ◽  
Insurance Companies ◽  
Sample Analysis ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Actual Performance ◽  
Time Investment ◽  
Language Sample Analysis ◽  
Language Sample

Purpose Most speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working with children with developmental language disorder (DLD) do not perform language sample analysis (LSA) on a regular basis, although they do regard LSA as highly informative for goal setting and evaluating grammatical therapy. The primary aim of this study was to identify facilitators, barriers, and needs related to performing LSA by Dutch SLPs working with children with DLD. The secondary aim was to investigate whether a training would change the actual performance of LSA. Method A focus group with 11 SLPs working in Dutch speech-language pathology practices was conducted. Barriers, facilitators, and needs were identified using thematic analysis and categorized using the theoretical domain framework. To address the barriers, a training was developed using software program CLAN. Changes in barriers and use of LSA were evaluated with a survey sent to participants before, directly after, and 3 months posttraining. Results The barriers reported in the focus group were SLPs' lack of knowledge and skills, time investment, negative beliefs about their capabilities, differences in beliefs about their professional role, and no reimbursement from health insurance companies. Posttraining survey results revealed that LSA was not performed more often in daily practice. Using CLAN was not the solution according to participating SLPs. Time investment remained a huge barrier. Conclusions A training in performing LSA did not resolve the time investment barrier experienced by SLPs. User-friendly software, developed in codesign with SLPs might provide a solution. For the short-term, shorter samples, preferably from narrative tasks, should be considered.

A 200-Year History of the Study of Childhood Language Disorders of Unknown Origin: Changes in Terminology

2020 ◽  
Vol 5 (1) ◽  
pp. 6-11 ◽  
Author(s):  
Laurence B. Leonard
Keyword(s):  
Language Impairment ◽  
Specific Language Impairment ◽  
Scientific Literature ◽  
Language Disorder ◽  
Language Disorders ◽  
Unknown Origin ◽  
Developmental Language Disorder ◽  
The Past ◽  
History Of ◽  
The Many

Purpose The current “specific language impairment” and “developmental language disorder” discussion might lead to important changes in how we refer to children with language disorders of unknown origin. The field has seen other changes in terminology. This article reviews many of these changes. Method A literature review of previous clinical labels was conducted, and possible reasons for the changes in labels were identified. Results References to children with significant yet unexplained deficits in language ability have been part of the scientific literature since, at least, the early 1800s. Terms have changed from those with a neurological emphasis to those that do not imply a cause for the language disorder. Diagnostic criteria have become more explicit but have become, at certain points, too narrow to represent the wider range of children with language disorders of unknown origin. Conclusions The field was not well served by the many changes in terminology that have transpired in the past. A new label at this point must be accompanied by strong efforts to recruit its adoption by clinical speech-language pathologists and the general public.

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document