Purpose We examined the relationship between adults' perception of the accuracy of children's speech, and acoustic detail in their subsequent productions to children. Methods Twenty-two adults participated in a task in which they rated the accuracy of 2- and 3-year-old children's word-initial /s/and /∫/ using a visual analog scale (VAS), then produced a token of the same word as if they were responding to the child whose speech they had just rated. Result The duration of adults' fricatives varied as a function of their perception of the accuracy of children's speech: longer fricatives were produced following productions that they rated as inaccurate. This tendency to modify duration in response to perceived inaccurate tokens was mediated by measures of self-reported experience interacting with children. However, speakers did not increase the spectral distinctiveness of their fricatives following the perception of inaccurate tokens. Conclusion These results suggest that adults modify temporal features of their speech in response to perceiving children's inaccurate productions. These longer fricatives are potentially both enhanced input to children, and an error-corrective signal.

Purpose Despite the long history of language sampling use in the study of child language development and disorders, there are no set guidelines specifying the reporting of language sampling procedures. The authors propose reporting standards for use by investigators who employ language samples in their research. Method The authors conducted a literature search of child-focused studies published in journals of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association between January 2000 and December 2011 that included language sampling procedures to help characterize child participants or to derive measures to serve as dependent variables. Following this search, they reviewed each study and documented the language sampling procedures reported. Results The authors’ synthesis revealed that approximately 25% of all child-focused studies use language samples to help characterize participants and/or derive dependent variables. They found remarkable inconsistencies in the reporting of language sampling procedures. Conclusion To maximize the conclusions drawn from research using language samples, the authors strongly encourage investigators of child language to consistently report language sampling procedures using the proposed reporting checklist.

No abstract