我们是否应该停止在儿童语言样本分析中使用词汇多样性测量方法?

IF 2.3 3区 医学 Q1 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Nan Bernstein Ratner, Youngjin Han, Ji Seung Yang
{"title":"我们是否应该停止在儿童语言样本分析中使用词汇多样性测量方法?","authors":"Nan Bernstein Ratner, Youngjin Han, Ji Seung Yang","doi":"10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00457","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":49240,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11253636/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Should We Stop Using Lexical Diversity Measures in Children's Language Sample Analysis?\",\"authors\":\"Nan Bernstein Ratner, Youngjin Han, Ji Seung Yang\",\"doi\":\"10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00457\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49240,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11253636/pdf/\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00457\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2024/6/5 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"Epub\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1044/2024_AJSLP-23-00457","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/6/5 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

目的:先前的研究已经发现了口语样本中常用的词汇多样性指数(如类型-标记词比率(TTR))由于样本量和诱导差异而存在的弱点,我们探讨了如果样本是从标准化提示中获得的,那么TTR和其他多样性测量(如不同词数/100(NDW)、词汇多样性(VocD)和移动平均TTR)是否会对儿童年龄和临床状态(典型发育中[TD]或发育性语言障碍[DLD])更加敏感:我们利用了叙事语言测试(Test of Narrative Language)和埃德蒙顿叙事规范工具(Edmonton Narrative Norms Instrument)规范样本的档案数据。我们研究了这些样本的词汇多样性和其他语言特性,这些样本来自 1,048 名 4-11 岁的儿童;其中 798 名被视为 TD,250 名被归类为语言学习障碍:TTR对儿童年龄或诊断组别最不敏感,极有可能将患有DLD的儿童误认为TD,将患有TD的儿童误认为患有DLD。NDW 的增长斜率较浅,对诊断分组不太敏感。表现最好的测量指标是 VocD。平均语篇长度、TNW 和动词/语篇显示出良好的增长轨迹,并能区分临床样本和典型样本:这项研究是迄今为止规模最大、对照效果最好的一项研究,它再次证实了 TTR 不应被用于儿童的临床决策。第二种流行的测量方法 NDW 在心理测量特性方面并没有明显的优势。由于依赖计算机辅助分析,最敏感的词汇多样性测量方法 VocD 不太可能得到普及,因此我们建议采用其他方法来评估儿童的词汇表达能力。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Should We Stop Using Lexical Diversity Measures in Children's Language Sample Analysis?

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
4.30
自引率
11.50%
发文量
353
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Mission: AJSLP publishes peer-reviewed research and other scholarly articles on all aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. The journal is an international outlet for clinical research pertaining to screening, detection, diagnosis, management, and outcomes of communication and swallowing disorders across the lifespan as well as the etiologies and characteristics of these disorders. Because of its clinical orientation, the journal disseminates research findings applicable to diverse aspects of clinical practice in speech-language pathology. AJSLP seeks to advance evidence-based practice by disseminating the results of new studies as well as providing a forum for critical reviews and meta-analyses of previously published work. Scope: The broad field of speech-language pathology, including aphasia; apraxia of speech and childhood apraxia of speech; aural rehabilitation; augmentative and alternative communication; cognitive impairment; craniofacial disorders; dysarthria; fluency disorders; language disorders in children; speech sound disorders; swallowing, dysphagia, and feeding disorders; and voice disorders.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信