Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2016; 37(02): 074-084
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1580742
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

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

Nan Bernstein Ratner
1   Department of Hearing and Speech Sciences, the University of Maryland, College Park, College Park, Maryland
,
Brian MacWhinney
2   Department of Psychology, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 April 2016 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

In this article, we review the advantages of language sample analysis (LSA) and explain how clinicians can make the process of LSA faster, easier, more accurate, and more insightful than LSA done “by hand” by using free, available software programs such as Computerized Language Analysis (CLAN). We demonstrate the utility of CLAN analysis in studying the expressive language of a very large cohort of 24-month-old toddlers tracked in a recent longitudinal study; toddlers in particular are the most likely group to receive LSA by clinicians, but existing reference “norms” for this population are based on fairly small cohorts of children. Finally, we demonstrate how a CLAN utility such as KidEval can now extract potential normative data from the very large number of corpora now available for English and other languages at the Child Language Data Exchange System project site. Most of the LSA measures that we studied appear to show developmental profiles suggesting that they may be of specifically higher value for children at certain ages, because they do not show an even developmental trajectory from 2 to 7 years of age.

Keywords

Language sample analysis - transcription - MLU - IPSyn - DSS
 

  • References

  • 1 Overton S, Wren Y. Outcome measurement using naturalistic language samples: a feasibility pilot study using language transcription software and speech and language therapy assistants. Child Lang Teach Ther 2014; 30 (2) 221-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Price LH, Hendricks S, Cook C. Incorporating computer-aided language sample analysis into clinical practice. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2010; 41 (2) 206-222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Overton SW , Y. Outcome measurement using naturalistic language samples: a feasibility pilot study using language transcription software and speech and language therapy assistants. Child Lang Teach Ther 2014; 30 (3) 221-229
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Caesar LG, Kohler PD. The state of school-based bilingual assessment: actual practice versus recommended guidelines. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 2007; 38 (3) 190-200
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Gorman K , et al. Automated morphological analysis of clinical language samples. NAACL HLT 2015; 108
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Hux K , et al. Language sampling practices: a survey of nine states. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 1993; 24 (2) 84-91
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Kemp K, Klee T. Clinical language sampling practices: results of a survey of speech-language pathologists in the United States. Child Lang Teach Ther 1997; 13 (2) 161-176
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Eisenberg SL, Fersko TM, Lundgren C. The use of MLU for identifying language impairment in preschool children: a review. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2001; 10 (4) 323
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Lee LL, Canter SM. Developmental sentence scoring: a clinical procedure for estimating syntactic development in children's spontaneous speech. J Speech Hear Disord 1971; 36 (3) 315-340
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Long SH, Channell RW. Accuracy of four language analysis procedures performed automatically. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2001; 10 (2) 180-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Cochran PS, Masterson JJ. Not using a computer in language assessment/intervention in defense of the reluctant clinician. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch 1995; 26 (3) 213-222
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Scarborough HS. Index of productive syntax. Appl Psycholinguist 1990; 11 (1) 1-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Hassanali KN, Liu Y, Iglesias A, Solorio T, Dollaghan C. Automatic generation of the index of productive syntax for child language transcripts. Behav Res Methods 2014; 46 (1) 254-262
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Westerveld MF, Claessen M. Clinician survey of language sampling practices in Australia. Int J Speech-Language Pathol 2014; 16 (3) 242-249
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Heilmann JJ. Myths and realities of language sample analysis. SIG 1 Perspect Lang Learn Educ 2010; 17 (1) 4-8
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Evans JL, Miller J. Language sample analysis in the 21st century. Semin Speech Lang 1999; 20 (2) 101-115
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Miller JF. Focus on schools. Having trouble monitoring language intervention? Language sample analysis is the solution. ASHA Leader 2001; 6 (16) 5
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Newman RS, Rowe ML, Bernstein Ratner N. Input and uptake at 7 months predicts toddler vocabulary: the role of child-directed speech and infant processing skills in language development. J Child Lang 2015; 24: 1-16
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Miller JF , et al. Assessing Language Production Using SALT Software. Middleton, WI: SALT Software LLC; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 20 Miller JF, Iglesias A, Rojas R. SALT 2010 Bilingual S/E Version: A Tool for Assessing the Language Production of Bilingual (Spanish/English) Children. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing Company; 2010
    Google Scholar
  • 21 Rispoli M, Hadley P, Holt J. Stalls and revisions: a developmental perspective on sentence production. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2008; 51 (4) 953-966
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Miller JF, Chapman RS. The relation between age and mean length of utterance in morphemes. J Speech Hear Res 1981; 24 (2) 154-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Rice ML, Smolik F, Perpich D, Thompson T, Rytting N, Blossom M. Mean length of utterance levels in 6-month intervals for children 3 to 9 years with and without language impairments. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2010; 53 (2) 333-349
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Lee LL. Developmental Sentence Analysis: A Grammatical Assessment Procedure for Speech and Language Clinicians. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press; 1974
    Google Scholar
  • 25 Brown R. A First Language: The Early Stages. 1973. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press;
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Malvern D, Richards B. Investigating accommodation in language proficiency interviews using a new measure of lexical diversity. Lang Test 2002; 19 (1) 85-104
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 McKee G, Malvern D, Richards B. Measuring vocabulary diversity using dedicated software. Lit Linguist Comput 2000; 15 (3) 323-338
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Pilar Dn , et al. Developmental trends in lexical diversity. Appl Linguist 2004; 25 (2) 220-242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Silverman S, Ratner NB. Measuring lexical diversity in children who stutter: application of vocd. J Fluency Disord 2002; 27 (4) 289-303 , quiz 303–304
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Owen AJ, Leonard LB. Lexical diversity in the spontaneous speech of children with specific language impairment: application of D. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2002; 45 (5) 927-937
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Wong AMY, Klee T, Stokes SF, Fletcher P, Leonard LB. Differentiating Cantonese-speaking preschool children with and without SLI using MLU and lexical diversity (D). J Speech Lang Hear Res 2010; 53 (3) 794-799
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar