ArticleLanguage, speech, and hearing services in schools2018
Percent Grammatical Responses as a General Outcome Measure: Initial Validity.
Article in Language, speech, and hearing services in schools, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 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
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Augmentative and Alternative Communication Generative Language Intervention: A Randomized Controlled Trial.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2026Trial
- Developmental Sentence Scoring for Preschool Language Sample Analysis: A Psychometric Update.American journal of speech-language pathology · 2026Article
- Stalling for Time: Stall, Revision, and Stuttering-Like Disfluencies Reflect Language Factors in the Speech of Young Children.Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR · 2023Article
- Tracking Early Sentence-Building Progress in Graphic Symbol Communication.Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2020Article
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.
Funding
Abstract
Purpose: This report investigated the validity of using percent grammatical responses (PGR) as a measure for assessing grammaticality. To establish construct validity, we computed the correlation of PGR with another measure of grammar skills and with an unrelated skill area. To establish concurrent validity for PGR, we computed the correlation of PGR with a previously validated measure of grammaticality, percent grammatical utterances (PGU), and examined the extent to which PGR and PGU agreed upon pass/fail decisions for children. Method: Participants included 79 3-year-olds from mostly middle socioeconomic status homes. Language samples were elicited by asking children to describe 15 pictures in response to 4 questions per picture. To calculate PGU, children's responses to all 4 questions were segmented into communication units, and each communication unit was evaluated for grammatical errors. To calculate PGR, the entire response to just the first question was evaluated for grammatical errors. Results: PGR scores significantly correlated with a standardized test of grammar (r = .70), but not with a measure of vocabulary (i.e., type-token ratio; r = .11). In addition, PGR scores were significantly correlated with PGU scores (r = .88). Agreement between PGR and PGU was 92% for pass decisions and 94% for fail decisions. Conclusions: The current study establishes the construct validity of PGR as a measure of grammar and supports the use of PGR as a measure to assess grammaticality.
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.