ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2026
Efficient Language Sampling for Deaf and Hard of Hearing Children: Evaluating Reliability Across Length, Timing, and Context.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeGiven the time demands of language sample analysis, this study aimed to identify efficient, flexible sampling procedures that maintain strong reliability. We examine how language sample length in minutes, timing (i.e., beginning vs. later in the elicitation task following a warm-up period), and elicitation context (i.e., play or conversation) influence the reliability of four common language measures in young deaf and hard of hearing (DHH) children.
methodParticipants included 21 DHH children (3-5 years old) who completed 10-min play and conversation samples in English. Samples were transcribed and analyzed for mean length of utterance in words, mean length of utterance in morphemes, total number of words per minute, and number of different words per minute. We evaluated the reliability of these measures by comparing shorter segments (i.e., 1, 3, 5, and 7 min) to the full sample using Cronbach's alpha, with additional comparisons based on the sample's timing and elicitation context.
resultsLanguage samples with durations of 3, 5, and 7 min yielded strong reliability across all measures. Timing and elicitation context had minimal impact overall, particularly when sample length was sufficient.
conclusionsThe findings support the use of samples as short as 3 min as a reliable and time-efficient approach to language sample analysis in DHH preschoolers. Results also challenge the assumption that a "warm-up" period is necessary before sampling, suggesting that reliable measurement can begin as soon as the elicitation task begins. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.32978336.
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.