Language Science and Analysis Language Analysis Exam M12, M14, and M15

purpose of integrated analysis is to

Moves beyond isolated skills

• Reflects real-world communication

• Supports accurate diagnosis and intervention

• Aligns with functional communication goals

language samples

ideal for integrated analysis

collect→ transcribe→ segment→ analyze→ interpret

naturalistic or structured elicitation

includes: conversation, narrative, expositiory

error analysis vs pattern analysis

•Error counting vs. pattern identification

•Consistency

•Contextual influences Questions to consider

• Are errors developmentally appropriate?

• Are patterns consistent?

• How does context affect performance?

• What is the functional impact?

integrating findings

quantitative data

qualitative observations

focus on functional communication

use analyses to guide intervention

phonological analysis

Examine sound system organization and patterns of errors

Determine impact on intelligibility and functional communication

Phonological patterns/processes

• Error consistency & variability

Independent and Relational Analysis

Consider This…

• How could a child’s phonological error patterns lead to misinterpretation of their abilities in other language domains, such as vocabulary or grammar, if analyzed in isolation

morphological analysis

morpheme usage: free vs bound, inflectional vs derivational

brown’s 14 grammatical morphemes

developmental expectations

consider this.. are morpheme errors developmental or disordered?

syntactic analysis

sentence types: simple vs complex

clause use and structure

word order

Consider this…Does the speaker rely on simple sentences? Are complex sentences attempted but incorrect?

semantic analysis

vocab diversity

word meaning

content accuracy

pragmatic analysis

Turn-taking

• Topic maintenance

• Appropriateness

• Repair strategies

• Discourse

LSA recap

Naturalistic, functional assessment of language

Captures expressive language in real contexts

Complements standardized testing

Provides quantitative + qualitative data

why LSA matters clinically

Reduces cultural and linguistic bias

Sensitive to subtle language difficulties and/or differences

Useful for multilingual speakers

Strong ecological validity

Supports progress monitoring

appropriate contexts for LSA

Conversation

Narrative retell

Narrative generation

Play-based interaction

Academic discourse (older students)

Functional communication (adults with acquired disorders)

appropriate populations for LSA

Preschoolers with suspected language delay

School-age children with academic concerns

Multilingual learners Individuals with Autism

Individuals with TBI, aphasia, or cognitive/communication disorders

Students with suspected SLI/DLD

quantitative type of LSA measures

MLU, TTR, NDW, C-units, %correct for use of grammatical morphemes

qualitative types of LSA measures

narrative structure, cohesion, pragmatic skills, error patterns

• Discourse-level

• topic maintenance, turntaking, elaboration

identifying strengths in LSA

Robust vocabulary use

Complex syntax attempts

Strong narrative macrostructure

Effective conversational skills

Use of cohesive devices

Age-appropriate MLU or TTR

identifying areas of need

Limited sentence complexity

Low lexical diversity

Frequent grammatical errors

Difficulty with narrative sequencing

Poor topic maintenance

Reduced utterance length

interpreting quantitative data

•Compare to developmental norms

•Consider sample length (100 utterances ideal)

•Use multiple measures, not just MLU

•Interpret within cultural/linguistic context

interpreting qualitative data

•Error patterns (omissions vs. substitutions)

•Narrative structure (setting, initiating event, resolution) •Pragmatic behaviors

•Communicative intent variety

typical patterns

• Developmentally appropriate errors

• Growth over time

• Influence of bilingual development

• Age-appropriate narrative structure

disordered patterns

• Persistent, pervasive errors

• Limited progress

• Errors not typical of bilingual development

• Breakdown in multiple language domains

linking LSA to intervention goals

ex. finding: limited MLU, goal: increase sentence length using expansions

ex. finding: only uses naming words, goal: increase vocab diversity

using LSA to justify clinical decisions

Supports eligibility decisions

Provides functional evidence of impairment

Guides goal writing

Helps inform service intensity

Documents progress over time

writing recommendations from LSA

•Target specific syntactic structures

•Expand vocabulary diversity

•Improve narrative organization

•Support pragmatic skills

•Provide classroom accommodations

•Suggest home-based language activities

example recommendations for LSA

focus on expanding utterances to 4-5 words

use modeling and recasting

incorporate narrative-based therapy

challenges in LSA collection

Time-consuming transcription

Inconsistent sample quality

Client reluctance or limited engagement

Background noise or interruptions

Limited norms for multilingual speakers

challenges in LSA analysis

Variability across contexts

Determining clinical significance

Cultural/linguistic considerations

Ambiguous utterances

Software limitations

Need for training and calibration

improving LSA accuracy

Use standardized elicitation protocols

Collect multiple samples

Use high-quality audio

Train team members

Use automated tools when appropriate

standardized

Norm-referenced

Standard administration procedures

Examples: CELF-5, PLS-5, OWLS-II

Strengths: reliability, comparison to norms

Limitations: cultural bias, limited flexibility, may not reflect natural language

criterion-referenced measures

Compare performance to specific skills or benchmarks

Examples: developmental checklists, curriculum-based measures

Strengths: flexible, instructional relevance

Limitations: no normative comparison, variable quality

language sampling

Naturalistic or structured samples

Analyzes vocabulary, syntax, discourse, pragmatics

Strengths: authentic, culturally adaptable

Limitations: time-consuming, requires training, variable across contexts

dynamic assessment

Test–teach–retest model

Focus on learning potential

Strengths: culturally responsive, reduces bias

Limitations: less standardized, requires skilled administration

informal probes

Clinician-created tasks

Quick checks of specific skills

Strengths: flexible, individualized

Limitations: no norms, variable reliability

matching tools to client age

Infants/toddlers:

• play-based assessments, parent report

School-age:

• standardized tests + language sampling

Adolescents:

• discourse analysis, curriculum-based tools

Adults: • functional communication measures

considering linguistic background

Assess in all languages when possible

Use dynamic assessment

Avoid over-reliance on English norms

diagnosis and communication profile examples

ASD: pragmatic tools, discourse analysis

DLD: syntax, morphology, narrative tools

TBI: functional communication, discourse

AAC users: multimodal assessment

setting considerations

Schools:

• curriculum-based, standardized tests

Clinics: •

diagnostic batteries, dynamic assessment

Hospitals:

• functional communication, quick screens

Home-health:

• caregiver interviews, naturalistic samples

culturally responsive assessment principle

Assess in the client’s primary language

Use interpreters and translators appropriately

Consider cultural norms for communication

Avoid deficit assumptions

examples of culturally responsive tools

BESA (Bilingual English–Spanish Assessment)

DELV (Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation)

PLS-5 Spanish (Preschool Language Scales, Fifth edition Spanish)

MacArthur-Bates Communicative Developmental Inventories (CDI)

Dynamic assessment protocols

Parent/caregiver interviews

language analysis tools

SALT (Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts) CLAN/CHAT

LIWC

Coh-Metrix

Text Inspector

what language analysis tools measure

Vocabulary

• TTR - lexical diversity

Syntax • MLU - clause density

Discourse • cohesion • narrative structure

Pragmatics • turn-taking • topic maintenance

advantages of assessment tools

Standardization increases reliability

Digital tools increase efficiency

Language samples capture authentic communication

Dynamic assessment reduces cultural bias

limitations of assessment tools

Standardized tests may be culturally biased

Language sampling is time-intensive

Digital tools require training

Informal probes lack reliability