Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28936690›Full record

ArticleBehavior research methods2018

Correlation and agreement between Language ENvironment Analysis (LENA™) and manual transcription for Dutch natural language recordings.

Tobias Busch, Anouk Sangen, Filiep Vanpoucke, Astrid van Wieringen

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Behavior research methods, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
23citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

23 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Fathers' unmodulated prosody in child-directed speech.The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2023
    Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Variations in the Home Language Environment and Early Language Development in Rural China.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Tobias BuschDepartment of Neuroscience, Research Group ExpORL, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. tbusch@cochlear.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8390-7892
Anouk SangenDepartment of Neuroscience, Research Group ExpORL, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Filiep VanpouckeCochlear Technology Centre, Schaliënhoevedreef 20i, Mechelen, Belgium.
Astrid van WieringenDepartment of Neuroscience, Research Group ExpORL, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The Language ENvironment Analysis system (LENA™) automatically analyzes the natural sound environments of children. Among other things, it estimates the amounts of adult words (AWC), child vocalizations (CV), conversational turns (CT), and electronic media (TV) that a child is exposed to. To assess LENA's reliability, we compared it to manual transcription. Specifically, we calculated the correlation and agreement between the LENA estimates and manual counts for 48 five-min audio samples. These samples were selected from eight day-long recordings of six Dutch-speaking children (ages 2-5). The correlations were strong for AWC, r =  . 87, and CV, r =  . 77, and comparatively low for CT, r =  . 52, and TV, r =  . 50. However, the agreement analysis revealed a constant bias in AWC counts, and proportional biases for CV and CT (i.e., the bias varied with the values for CV and CT). Agreement for detecting electronic media was poor. Moreover, the limits of agreement were wide for all four metrics. That is, the differences between LENA and the manual transcriptions for individual audio samples varied widely around the mean difference. This variation could indicate that LENA was affected by differences between the samples that did not equally affect the human transcribers. The disagreements and biases cast doubt on the comparability of LENA measurements across families and time, which is crucial for using LENA in research. Our sample is too small to conclude within which limits LENA's measurements are comparable, but it seems advisable to be cautious of factors that could systematically bias LENA's performance and thereby create confounds.

Indexed as

EnvironmentLanguageSpeech Recognition SoftwareAdultChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleNetherlandsReproducibility of ResultsAdult word countAgreementAutomatic speech recognitionBiasChild vocalization countConversational turn countDutchElectronic mediaHuman transcriptionMeasurement errorMethod comparisonReliability

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.