2010
DOI: 10.3109/02699200903581067
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Whole word measures in bilingual children with speech sound disorders

Abstract: Phonological acquisition traditionally has been measured using constructs that focus on segments rather than the whole words. Findings from recent research have suggested whole-word productions be evaluated using measures such as phonological mean length of utterance (pMLU) and the proportion of whole-word proximity (PWP). These measures have been investigated mainly in typically-developing children, but their use with children with speech sound disorders has been limited. This study compares PMLU, PWP, and co… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1

Citation Types

1
17
0
2

Year Published

2011
2011
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(20 citation statements)
references
References 25 publications
1
17
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The first cross-linguistic results were reported by Ingram (2002), who later reviewed studies using the pMLU method in six languages (English, Cantonese, Dutch, Finnish, French and Spanish;see Ingram, 2008). Although some studies have tried to capture the differences between the pMLU and PCC (Burrows & Goldstein, 2010;Tyler & Lewis, 2005), these studies have obtained very similar results with both the metrics. For the time being, neither method has been proven to be superior.…”
supporting
confidence: 71%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…The first cross-linguistic results were reported by Ingram (2002), who later reviewed studies using the pMLU method in six languages (English, Cantonese, Dutch, Finnish, French and Spanish;see Ingram, 2008). Although some studies have tried to capture the differences between the pMLU and PCC (Burrows & Goldstein, 2010;Tyler & Lewis, 2005), these studies have obtained very similar results with both the metrics. For the time being, neither method has been proven to be superior.…”
supporting
confidence: 71%
“…The authors state that VLBW children are at a greater risk of poor phonological development than their controls at 2 years of age. Burrows and Goldstein (2010) used the pMLU method as well as PCC scores in a study of Spanish-English bilingual children pMLU in SLI 429 (ages 3;2-5;3, mean age 4;1) with a speech sound disorder and age-matched monolingual peers. They did not find statistically significant differences between the monolingual and bilingual children in the PCC, pMLU and whole-word proximity values (PWP, a measure that compares the child's pMLU with that of the target words).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This finding was not surprising given prior findings in the literature. For example, Burrows and Goldstein (2010) reported no difference between monolingual and bilingual speakers of Spanish with respect to production accuracy for segments or whole-words. Examining a larger sample of four-to-sevenyear-old children, Goldstein, Bunta, Lange, Rodriguez, and Burrows (2010) found that relative amount of exposure to Spanish or English did not result in significant differences in consonant accuracy; direct measures of language proficiency were predictive of segment accuracy for this same sample of older children.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…In addition, three of the children in Barlow (2003) were diagnosed with phonological delay, whereas the children in the current study were all typically-developing. In addition to Barlow (2003), only one study to date details the phonological error patterns in bilingual Spanish–English-speaking children with phonological disorders (Burrows & Goldstein, 2010); therefore little data exist on the differences between typically-developing Spanish–English-speaking bilingual children and those with phonological delay or disorder to make a definitive claim that phonological skill is driving differences between the two studies. Finally, because both studies examined a small set of children, differences between the two studies could be due to the individual variation across the subjects selected.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%