ArticleRevista de logopedia, foniatria y audiologia
Elicited vs. Spontaneous Language as Methods for the Assessment of Grammatical Development: The DEME Assessment Tool.
Article in Revista de logopedia, foniatria y audiologia. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Disentangling Bilingualism and Developmental Language Disorder in the Acquisition of Spanish Verbal Agreement Morphology.Journal of child language · 2026Article
- Disentangling bilingualism and developmental language disorder in the acquisition of Spanish articles and clitics: Quantitative and qualitative contributions.Journal of child language · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Introduction and Objectives: This study compares data collection approaches in the assessment of grammatical development in Spanish-speaking children. Specifically, we compared error rates produced in data collected using samples from spontaneous language versus elicited production, using both broad (overall) and narrow measures (errors with noun phrases). Methods and Participants: Monolingual-Spanish-speaking five-year-olds ( Results: Children in the TL group outperform children in the Risk group in all measures used in this study. Statistically significant differences were found between children at Risk and TL children in both spontaneous and elicited language measures, although the effect size of the elicited language measures was considerably higher. Elicited and spontaneous tasks are more likely to produce results that are in accord than in disaccord. However, when results are in disaccord, the results almost always show low performance in elicited language but high performance in spontaneous language. Elicitation methods do not seem to have an impact on the type of error produced for neither narrow nor broad measures.
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.