Trial reportLanguage, speech, and hearing services in schools2015
Sample size for measuring grammaticality in preschool children from picture-elicited language samples.
Trial report in Language, speech, and hearing services in schools, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Reliability of Short Conversational Language Sample Measures in Children With and Without Developmental Language Disorder.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2022Article
- Using Free Computer-Assisted Language Sample Analysis to Evaluate and Set Treatment Goals for Children Who Speak African American English.Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2021Article
- Percent Grammatical Responses as a General Outcome Measure: Initial Validity.Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2018Article
- The Persian developmental sentence scoring as a clinical measure of morphosyntax in children.Medical journal of the Islamic Republic of IranArticle
- Using Animated Action Scenes to Remotely Assess Sentence Diversity in Toddlers.Topics in language disordersArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeThe purpose of this study was to investigate whether a shorter language sample elicited with fewer pictures (i.e., 7) would yield a percent grammatical utterances (PGU) score similar to that computed from a longer language sample elicited with 15 pictures for 3-year-old children.
methodLanguage samples were elicited by asking forty 3-year-old children with varying language skills to talk about pictures in response to prompts. PGU scores were computed for each of two 7-picture sets and for the full set of 15 pictures.
resultsPGU scores for the two 7-picture sets did not differ significantly from, and were highly correlated with, PGU scores for the full set and with each other. Agreement for making pass-fail decisions between each 7-picture set and the full set and between the two 7-picture sets ranged from 80% to 100%.
conclusionThe current study suggests that the PGU measure is robust enough that it can be computed on the basis of 7, at least in 3-year-old children whose language samples were elicited using similar procedures.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.