American journal of speech-language pathology · 2024
Should We Stop Using Lexical Diversity Measures in Children's Language Sample Analysis?
СтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Ratner Nan Bernstein, Han Youngjin, Yang Ji Seung
Аннотация
PURPOSE: Prior work has identified weaknesses in commonly used indices of lexical diversity in spoken language samples, such as type-token ratio (TTR) due to sample size and elicitation variation, we explored whether TTR and other diversity measures, such as number of different words/100 (NDW), vocabulary diversity (VocD), and the moving average TTR would be more sensitive to child age and clinical status (typically developing [TD] or developmental language disorder [DLD]) if samples were obtained from standardized prompts.
METHOD: We utilized archival data from the norming samples of the Test of Narrative Language and the Edmonton Narrative Norms Instrument. We examined lexical diversity and other linguistic properties of the samples, from a total of 1,048 children, ages 4-11 years; 798 of these were considered TD, whereas 250 were categorized as having a language learning disorder.
RESULTS: TTR was the least sensitive to child age or diagnostic group, with good potential to misidentify children with DLD as TD and TD children as having DLD. Growth slopes of NDW were shallow and not very sensitive to diagnostic grouping. The strongest performing measure was VocD. Mean length of utterance, TNW, and verbs/utterance did show both good growth trajectories and ability to distinguish between clinical and typical samples.
CONCLUSIONS: This study, the largest and best controlled to date, re-affirms that TTR should not be used in clinical decision making with children. A second popular measure, NDW, is not measurably stronger in terms of its psychometric properties. Because the most sensitive measure of lexical diversity, VocD, is unlikely to gain popularity because of reliance on computer-assisted analysis, we suggest alternatives for the appraisal of children's expressive vocabulary skill.
METHOD: We utilized archival data from the norming samples of the Test of Narrative Language and the Edmonton Narrative Norms Instrument. We examined lexical diversity and other linguistic properties of the samples, from a total of 1,048 children, ages 4-11 years; 798 of these were considered TD, whereas 250 were categorized as having a language learning disorder.
RESULTS: TTR was the least sensitive to child age or diagnostic group, with good potential to misidentify children with DLD as TD and TD children as having DLD. Growth slopes of NDW were shallow and not very sensitive to diagnostic grouping. The strongest performing measure was VocD. Mean length of utterance, TNW, and verbs/utterance did show both good growth trajectories and ability to distinguish between clinical and typical samples.
CONCLUSIONS: This study, the largest and best controlled to date, re-affirms that TTR should not be used in clinical decision making with children. A second popular measure, NDW, is not measurably stronger in terms of its psychometric properties. Because the most sensitive measure of lexical diversity, VocD, is unlikely to gain popularity because of reliance on computer-assisted analysis, we suggest alternatives for the appraisal of children's expressive vocabulary skill.