ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2022
The Reliability of Short Conversational Language Sample Measures in Children With and Without Developmental Language Disorder.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2022. 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, 19 citations in OpenAlex.
- Adapting computerised language sample analysis for Jamaican Creole-Jamaican English-speaking preschoolers: A pilot study.Clinical linguistics & phonetics · 2026Article
- A methodological protocol for multimodal profiling of conversational abilities in mandarin-speaking children with and without developmental language disorder.Frontiers in psychology · 2026Article
- Transcription Decisions of Conjoined Independent Clauses Are Equitable Across Dialects but Impact Measurement Outcomes.Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2024Article
- Consistency and reliability of automated language measures across expressive language samples in autism.Autism research : official journal of the International Society for Autism Research · 2023Article
- The development of a digital story-retell elicitation and analysis tool through citizen science data collection, software development and machine learning.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Article
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 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
purposeLanguage sample analysis (LSA) represents an ecologically valid method for diagnosing, identifying goals, and measuring progress in children with developmental language disorder (DLD). LSA is, however, time consuming. The purpose of this study was to determine the length of sample needed to obtain reliable LSA measures for children in kindergarten and first grade with typical language (TL) and DLD using automated analyses from the Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts software.
methodPlay-based conversational language samples collected on kindergarten to first-grade children with TL (
resultsReliability estimates were similar for the TL and DLD groups except for errors and omissions, which showed overall higher levels of reliability in the DLD group and reached acceptable levels at 3 min. Percent grammatical utterances were reliable at 7 min in the DLD group and not reliable in shorter samples in the TL group. The subordination index was reliable at 10 min for both groups. Number of different words reached acceptable reliability at the 3-min length for the DLD group and at the 10-min length for the TL group. Utterances and words per minute were reliable at 3 min and mean length of utterance at 7 min in both groups.
conclusionsSpeech-language pathologists can obtain reliable LSA measures from shorter, 7-min conversational language samples from kindergarten to first-grade children with DLD. Shorter language samples may encourage increased use of LSA. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19529287.
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.