Literature DB >> 29710199

Is Putting SUGAR (Sampling Utterances of Grammatical Analysis Revised) Into Language Sample Analysis a Good Thing? A Response to Pavelko and Owens (2017).

Ling-Yu Guo1,2, Sarita Eisenberg3, Nan Bernstein Ratner4, Brian MacWhinney5.   

Abstract

Purpose: In this letter, the authors respond to Pavelko and Owens' (2017) newly advanced set of procedures for language sample analysis: Sampling Utterances and Grammatical Analysis Revised (SUGAR). Method: The authors contrast some of the new guidelines for transcription, morpheme segmentation, and language sample elicitation in SUGAR with traditional conventions for language sample analysis (LSA). They address the potential impact of the new guidelines on some of the target measures in SUGAR-mean length of utterances in morphemes (MLUm), words per sentence (WPS), and clauses per sentence (CPS)-and provide their suggestions.
Results: Inclusion of partially intelligible utterances in SUGAR may over- or underestimate children's MLUm and reduce the reliability of computing WPS. Counting derivational morphemes and the component morphemes of catenatives (e.g., gonna) may result in overestimation of children's morphosyntactic skills.
Conclusion: Further data are needed to determine whether MLUm including derivational morphemes and the component morphemes of catenatives is a better measure of children's morphosyntactic skills than MLUm excluding those morphemes. Pending such data, the authors recommend maintaining traditional LSA conventions and measures. Furthermore, free, fast automated utilities already exist that reduce barriers for clinicians to conduct informative, in-depth LSA.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2018        PMID: 29710199      PMCID: PMC6105128          DOI: 10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17-0084

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch        ISSN: 0161-1461            Impact factor:   2.983


  14 in total

1.  An alternate MLU calculation: magnitude and variability of effects.

Authors:  J R Johnston
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 2.297

2.  Specific language impairment and grammatical morphology: a discriminant function analysis.

Authors:  L M Bedore; L B Leonard
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  1998-10       Impact factor: 2.297

3.  Sampling Utterances and Grammatical Analysis Revised (SUGAR): New Normative Values for Language Sample Analysis Measures.

Authors:  Stacey L Pavelko; Robert E Owens
Journal:  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch       Date:  2017-07-26       Impact factor: 2.983

4.  Use of Language Sample Analysis by School-Based SLPs: Results of a Nationwide Survey.

Authors:  Stacey L Pavelko; Robert E Owens; Marie Ireland; Debbie L Hahs-Vaughn
Journal:  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch       Date:  2016-07-01       Impact factor: 2.983

5.  The rules of the game: properties of a database of expository language samples.

Authors:  John Heilmann; Thomas O Malone
Journal:  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch       Date:  2014-10       Impact factor: 2.983

6.  Psychometric review of language and articulation tests for preschool children.

Authors:  R J McCauley; L Swisher
Journal:  J Speech Hear Disord       Date:  1984-02

7.  Language sampling for kindergarten children with and without SLI: mean length of utterance, IPSYN, and NDW.

Authors:  Lynne E Hewitt; Carol Scheffner Hammer; Kristine M Yont; J Bruce Tomblin
Journal:  J Commun Disord       Date:  2005-01-07       Impact factor: 2.288

8.  Conversational and narrative speaking in adolescents: examining the use of complex syntax.

Authors:  Marilyn A Nippold; Megan W Frantz-Kaspar; Paige M Cramond; Cecilia Kirk; Christine Hayward-Mayhew; Melanie MacKinnon
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2014-06-01       Impact factor: 2.297

Review 9.  Using Language Sample Analysis in Clinical Practice: Measures of Grammatical Accuracy for Identifying Language Impairment in Preschool and School-Aged Children.

Authors:  Sarita Eisenberg; Ling-Yu Guo
Journal:  Semin Speech Lang       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 1.761

Review 10.  Your Laptop to the Rescue: Using the Child Language Data Exchange System Archive and CLAN Utilities to Improve Child Language Sample Analysis.

Authors:  Nan Bernstein Ratner; Brian MacWhinney
Journal:  Semin Speech Lang       Date:  2016-04-25       Impact factor: 1.761

View more
  2 in total

1.  Use of Computerized Language Analysis to Assess Child Language.

Authors:  Julianne Garbarino; Nan Bernstein Ratner; Brian MacWhinney
Journal:  Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch       Date:  2020-03-18       Impact factor: 2.983

2.  Dynamic Norming and Open Science.

Authors:  Brian MacWhinney; Nan Bernstein Ratner
Journal:  J Speech Lang Hear Res       Date:  2022-02-22       Impact factor: 2.674

  2 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.