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

Sarita Eisenberg; Ling-Yu Guo

doi:10.1055/s-0036-1580740

Seminars in Speech and Language, Table of Contents

Semin Speech Lang 2016; 37(02): 106-116
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1580740

Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

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

Sarita Eisenberg

¹Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Montclair State University, Montclair, New Jersey

,

Ling-Yu Guo

²University at Buffalo–The State University of New York, Buffalo, New York

› Author Affiliations

Abstract

This article reviews the existing literature on the diagnostic accuracy of two grammatical accuracy measures for differentiating children with and without language impairment (LI) at preschool and early school age based on language samples. The first measure, the finite verb morphology composite (FVMC), is a narrow grammatical measure that computes children's overall accuracy of four verb tense morphemes. The second measure, percent grammatical utterances (PGU), is a broader grammatical measure that computes children's accuracy in producing grammatical utterances. The extant studies show that FVMC demonstrates acceptable (i.e., 80 to 89% accurate) to good (i.e., 90% accurate or higher) diagnostic accuracy for children between 4;0 (years;months) and 6;11 in conversational or narrative samples. In contrast, PGU yields acceptable to good diagnostic accuracy for children between 3;0 and 8;11 regardless of sample types. Given the diagnostic accuracy shown in the literature, we suggest that FVMC and PGU can be used as one piece of evidence for identifying children with LI in assessment when appropriate. However, FVMC or PGU should not be used as therapy goals directly. Instead, when children are low in FVMC or PGU, we suggest that follow-up analyses should be conducted to determine the verb tense morphemes or grammatical structures that children have difficulty with.

Keywords

Finite verb morphology composite - percent grammatical utterances - diagnostic accuracy - language sample analysis

Full Text

References

References
1 Huang R, Hopkins J, Nippold MA. Satisfaction with standardized language testing: a survey of speech-language pathologists. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 1997; 28: 12-29
2 McCauley RJ. Assessment of Language Disorders in Children. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum; 2001
3 Paul R, Norbury CF. Language Disorders from Infancy through Adolescence, 4th ed. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier; 2012
4 Aram DM, Morris R, Hall NE. Clinical and research congruence in identifying children with specific language impairment. J Speech Hear Res 1993; 36 (3) 580-591
5 Dunn M, Flax J, Sliwinski M, Aram D. The use of spontaneous language measures as criteria for identifying children with specific language impairment: an attempt to reconcile clinical and research incongruence. J Speech Hear Res 1996; 39 (3) 643-654
6 Eisenberg SL, Fersko McGovern T, Lundgren C. The use of MLU for identifying language impairment in preschool children. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2001; 10: 323-342
7 Plante E, Vance R. Selection of preschool language tests: a data-based approach. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 1994; 25: 15-24
8 Goffman L, Leonard J. Growth of language skills in preschool children with specific language impairment: implications for assessment and intervention. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2000; 9: 151-161
9 Leonard LB. Children with Specific Language Impairment, 2nd ed. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press; 2014
10 Poll GH, Betz SK, Miller CA. Identification of clinical markers of specific language impairment in adults. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2010; 53 (2) 414-429
11 Rice ML, Wexler K, Hershberger S. Tense over time: the longitudinal course of tense acquisition in children with specific language impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1998; 41 (6) 1412-1431
12 Windsor J, Scott CM, Street CK. Verb and noun morphology in the spoken and written language of children with language learning disabilities. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000; 43 (6) 1322-1336
13 Bedore LM, Leonard LB. Specific language impairment and grammatical morphology: a discriminant function analysis. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1998; 41 (5) 1185-1192
14 Souto SM, Leonard LB, Deevy P. Identifying risk for specific language impairment with narrow and global measures of grammar. Clin Linguist Phon 2014; 28 (10) 741-756
15 Biber D, Johansson S, Leech G, Conrad S, Finegan E. Longman Grammar of Spoken and Written English. Essex, UK: Pearson Education Limited; 1999
16 Gladfelter A, Leonard LB. Alternative tense and agreement morpheme measures for assessing grammatical deficits during the preschool period. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2013; 56 (2) 542-552
17 Moyle MJ, Karasinski C, Ellis Weismer S, Gorman BK. Grammatical morphology in school-age children with and without language impairment: a discriminant function analysis. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2011; 42 (4) 550-560
18 Guo LY, Schneider P. Differentiating school-aged children with and without language impairment using tense and grammaticality measures from a narrative task. J Speech Lang Hear Res , In press
19 Guo LY, Eisenberg S. The diagnostic accuracy of two tense measures for identifying 3-year-olds with language impairment. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2014; 23 (2) 203-212
20 Ebbels SH, van der Lely HK, Dockrell JE. Intervention for verb argument structure in children with persistent SLI: a randomized control trial. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2007; 50 (5) 1330-1349
21 Grela B, Leonard L. The use of subject arguments by children with specific language impairment. Clin Linguist Phon 1997; 11 (6) 443-453
22 Eisenberg SL, Guo LY. Differentiating children with and without language impairment based on grammaticality. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2013; 44 (1) 20-31
23 Loeb DF, Leonard LB. Subject case marking and verb morphology in normally developing and specifically language-impaired children. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34 (2) 340-346
24 Moore ME. Third person pronoun errors by children with and without language impairment. J Commun Disord 2001; 34 (3) 207-228
25 Leonard LB, Eyer JA, Bedore LM, Grela BG. Three accounts of the grammatical morpheme difficulties of English-speaking children with specific language impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1997; 40 (4) 741-753
26 Watkins RV, Rice ML. Verb particle and preposition acquisition in language-impaired preschoolers. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34 (5) 1130-1141
27 Fey ME, Catts HW, Proctor-Williams K, Tomblin JB, Zhang X. Oral and written story composition skills of children with language impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004; 47 (6) 1301-1318
28 Scott CM, Windsor J. General language performance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository discourse of school-age children with language learning disabilities. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2000; 43 (2) 324-339
29 Eisenberg SL, Guo LY, Germezia M. How grammatical are 3-year-olds?. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2012; 43 (1) 36-52
30 Lee LL. Developmental Sentence Analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press; 1973
31 Eisenberg SL, Guo LY. Sample size for measuring grammaticality in preschool children from picture-elicited language samples. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2015; 46 (2) 81-93
32 Hutchinson TA. What to look for in the technical manual: twenty questions for users. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 1996; 27: 109-121
33 Sabers DL. By their tests we will know them. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 1996; 27: 102-108
34 Bain BA, Dollaghan CA. Treatment efficacy: the notion of clinically significant change. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 1991; 22: 264-270