Identifying risk for specific language impairment with narrow and global measures of grammar

Souto, Sofía M.; Leonard, Laurence B.; Deevy, Patricia

doi:10.3109/02699206.2014.893372

Cited by 33 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Eisenberg and Guo (2013), for instance, reported a sensitivity rate of 100% and a specificity rate of 88% for differentiating between 3-year-old children with and without LI on the basis of the percentage of utterances that were grammatical. Similarly, Souto, Leonard, and Deevy (2014) reported 93% sensitivity and 94% specificity in their study of 4-year-old children. …”

Section: Why Grammaticality Is Importantmentioning

confidence: 88%

“…This standard is particularly relevant for children with LI because the presence of grammatical deficits is a key characteristic of these children (Leonard, 1998). Measures of grammaticality have been shown to distinguish between preschool children with and without LI (Dunn, Flax, Sliwinski, and Aram, 1996;Eisenberg & Guo, 2013;Souto, Leonard, & Deevy, 2014). Eisenberg and Guo (2013), for instance, reported a sensitivity rate of 100% and a specificity rate of 88% for differentiating between 3-year-old children with and without LI on the basis of the percentage of utterances that were grammatical.…”

Section: Why Grammaticality Is Importantmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, that result was based on pre-identified groups of children, as is common for studies of diagnostic accuracy (Pawlowska, 2014;Souto et al, 2014) and which inflates group differentiation accuracy rates (Goodwin & Leech, 2006;Pawlowska, 2014). In contrast, in the current study, we included children with varying language abilities and were masked to the language status of participants.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitations Of The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In addition, four items (i.e., pictures and/or interview topics) are needed to calculate reliable percent correct information units in an item-based task for adults (Brookshire & Nicholas, 1994). However, the numbers of utterances or items that are needed in order to compute reliable PGU scores in children remains an open question, even though studies have shown that PGU scores differentiate children with and without LI (Eisenberg & Guo, 2013;Fey, Catts, Proctor-Williams, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2004;Guo & Schneider, 2014;Souto et al, 2014). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Sample Size for Measuring Grammaticality in Preschool Children From Picture-Elicited Language Samples

Eisenberg

Guo

2015

LSHSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to investigate whether a shorter language sample elicited with fewer pictures (i.e., 7) would yield a percent grammatical utterances (PGU) score similar to that computed from a longer language sample elicited with 15 pictures for 3-year-old children. Method: Language samples were elicited by asking forty 3-year-old children with varying language skills to talk about pictures in response to prompts. PGU scores were computed for each of two 7-picture sets and for the full set of 15 pictures.Results: PGU scores for the two 7-picture sets did not differ significantly from, and were highly correlated with, PGU scores for the full set and with each other. Agreement for making pass-fail decisions between each 7-picture set and the full set and between the two 7-picture sets ranged from 80% to 100%. Conclusion: The current study suggests that the PGU measure is robust enough that it can be computed on the basis of 7, at least in 3-year-old children whose language samples were elicited using similar procedures. L anguage sample analysis (LSA) is an important part of assessing a child's language. Some LSA provides a fine-grained analysis of a particular aspect of language, such as use of verb tense markers or noun phrase elaboration, for the purpose of determining strengths and weaknesses and selecting treatment goals (e.g., Eisenberg et al., 2008;Leonard, Camarata, Brown, & Camarata, 2004). Other LSA measures, such as mean length of utterance and number of different words, broadly characterize a child's linguistic performance for the purpose of identifying a language impairment (LI) or measuring change over time (e.g., Rice et al., 2010;Scott & Windsor, 2000). These are referred to as general language performance measures. The current article looks at one general language performance measure -percent grammatical utterances-that measures grammaticality (i.e., the extent to which a child's language production conforms to the conventions of English grammar and usage) using picture-elicited language samples.One frequently given reason for not using language sample analysis in clinical work is the amount of time it takes for eliciting, transcribing, and analyzing the sample (Hux, Morris-Friehe, & Sanger, 1993;Kemp & Klee, 1997). This time could be reduced by using shorter samples. However, it needs to be established whether those shorter samples will yield the same results as longer samples. In the current article, we focused on evaluating whether percent grammatical utterances in 3-year-old children varies with the number of pictures that are used to elicit language samples. Why Grammaticality Is ImportantOne aim of the common core educational standard for language is for students to demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English grammar and usage when speaking or writing (e.g., State of New Jersey Department of Education, 2010). This standard is particularly relevant for children with LI because the presence of grammatical deficits is a key characteristic of these children ...

show abstract

Section: Why Grammaticality Is Importantmentioning

confidence: 88%

Section: Why Grammaticality Is Importantmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Strengths and Limitations Of The Current Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Sample Size for Measuring Grammaticality in Preschool Children From Picture-Elicited Language Samples

Eisenberg

Guo

2015

LSHSS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Hence, the results of this study indicate that different grammatical measures do not yield equivalent results for children with SLI. [25]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A systematic review on diagnostic procedures for specific language impairment: The sensitivity and specificity issues

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Identification of children with specific language impairment (SLI) has been viewed as both necessity and challenge. Investigators and clinicians use different tests and measures for this purpose. Some of these tests/measures have good psychometric properties, but it is not sufficient for diagnostic purposes. A diagnostic procedure can be used for identification a specific population with confidence only when its sensitivity and specificity are acceptable. In this study, we searched for tests/measures with predefined sensitivity and specificity for identification of preschool children with SLI from their typically developing peers.Materials and Methods:A computerized search in bibliographic databases from 2000 to August 2015 was performed with the following keywords: “specific language impairment” or SLI” and “primary language impairment” or ‘PLI’ with at least one of the followings: “diagnosis,” “identification,” “accuracy,” “sensitivity,” and “specificity.” In addition, the related citations and reference lists of the selected articles were considered.Results:The results of reviewing 23 included studies show that the index measures used in studies vary in accuracy with the sensitivity ranging from 16% to 100% and the specificity ranging from 14% to 100%.Conclusion:These varieties in sensitivity and specificity of different tests/measures confirm the necessity of attention to the diagnostic power of tests/measures before their use as diagnostic tool. Further, the results indicate there are some promising tests/measures that the available evidence supports their performances in the diagnosis of SLI in preschool-aged children, yet the place of a reference standard for the diagnosis of SLI is vacant among investigations.

show abstract

Bibliography

2018

Language Disorders From Infancy Through Adolescence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Identifying risk for specific language impairment with narrow and global measures of grammar

Cited by 33 publications

References 24 publications

Sample Size for Measuring Grammaticality in Preschool Children From Picture-Elicited Language Samples

Sample Size for Measuring Grammaticality in Preschool Children From Picture-Elicited Language Samples

A systematic review on diagnostic procedures for specific language impairment: The sensitivity and specificity issues

Bibliography

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About