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.
RCT Entities:
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.
Authors: Sarita L Eisenberg; Teresa A Ukrainetz; Jennifer R Hsu; Joan N Kaderavek; Laura M Justice; Ronald B Gillam Journal: Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch Date: 2008-04 Impact factor: 2.983
Authors: Marc E Fey; Hugh W Catts; Kerry Proctor-Williams; J Bruce Tomblin; Xuyang Zhang Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2004-12 Impact factor: 2.297
Authors: Windi Krok; Elizabeth S Norton; Mary Kate Buchheit; Emily Harriott; Lauren Wakschlag; Pamela A Hadley Journal: Top Lang Disord Date: 2022 Apr-Jun
Authors: Courtney Overton; Taylor Baron; Barbara Zurer Pearson; Nan Bernstein Ratner Journal: Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch Date: 2021-01-18 Impact factor: 2.983