ArticlePerspectives of the ASHA special interest groups2020
Measure What You Treat: Using Language Sample Analysis for Grammatical Outcome Measures in Children with Developmental Language Disorder.
Article in Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Bilingual Children's Grammatical Productivity From Spontaneous Language Samples in English and Spanish.Language, speech, and hearing services in schools · 2026Article
- Should We Stop Using Lexical Diversity Measures in Children's Language Sample Analysis?American journal of speech-language pathology · 2024Article
- 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
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: Language Sample Analysis (LSA) is commonly used to monitor progress for children with language disorders (Pavelko, Owens, Ireland, & Hahs-Vaughn, 2016). For children with grammar goals, pediatric SLPs report mean length of utterance (MLU) and type-token ratio (TTR) as the two LSA measures most commonly used (Finestack & Satterlund, 2018). For focused grammatical intervention, these measures may be ineffective in capturing treatment growth. In this clinical focus paper, we provide a preliminary comparison of four measures that could be considered as progress monitoring tools following intervention for one finiteness marker. Methods: Pre- and post-treatment spontaneous language samples from six children with developmental language disorder (DLD) who underwent treatment for the third person singular -s Results: Increases were most common across participants in measures that examined use of the treatment target (i.e., % accuracy and TAP score of Conclusions: For preschool-aged children with DLD, MLU and TTR may not be effective as the sole outcome measures following treatment of
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.