Journal of Paramedical Sciences & Rehabilitation

Journal of Paramedical Sciences & Rehabilitation

Language Sample Length Effect on Mean Length of Utterance in Morpheme in Normal Persian Children

Document Type : Original Article

Authors
N Ghaderniya 1
M Alizadeh 2
N Jalilevand 3
Sh Jalaei 4
S MollaAghajani 5
1 Student Research Committee, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran.
2 Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran
3 Department of Speech and Language Pathology, School of Rehabilitation Sciences, Iran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
4 Department of Physioherapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran
5 Department of Biostatistics, School of Rehabilitation, Babol University of Medical Sciences, Babol, Iran.
10.22038/jpsr.2019.32819.1814
Abstract
Purpose:
Language sample analysis (LSA) is one of the best methods of language evaluation and mean length of utterance (MLU), and also it is one of the most popular methods for analyzing language samples in children. Spontaneous utterance sampling determining MLU requires a lot of time and now it is not clear how many utterance in spontaneous speech sample of Persian-speaking children can represent their ability in morphology and syntax. Determining the relationship between the length of language sample and the MLU can help further research in determining the reliable sample to evaluate MLU in Persian speaking children. Therefore, this study aimed to determine the effect of language sample length on MLUm (Mean Length of Utterance in Morpheme) in Persian-speaking children aged 4-5 years.
Methods:
30 children (15 girls and 15 boys) were selected from kindergartens in Babol. Language sampling was performed in a 30-minute free play between the child and researcher. Four sets of speech samples in different lengths of 50, 100, 150, and 200 utterances were transcripted sequentially. The mean MLUm in different lengths was compared by one-way ANOVA and Bonferroni's post hoc test.
Results:
The mean MLUm was significantly different in samples with 50 (mean = 4.40) and 150 (mean = 4.71), and samples with 50 (mean = 4.40) and 200 (mean = 4.79) utterances. No significant difference was found between MLUm in other lengths (p<0/05).
Conclusion:
In spontaneous speech samples of Persian-language children, the length of the language sample was effective on MLUm, therefore, that an increase in sample length of more than 100 utterance can improve the MLUm. This effect is not significant in language samples with more than 100 utterances.
Keywords
Normal Children
Speech and Language
Language Sample Length
Mean Length of Utterance in morpheme (MLUm)
Subjects
  1. Vahab M, Shahim S, Oryadizanjani M, Jafari S, et al. The relationship of expressive language development and social skills in 4-6-year-old Persian-speaking children. Audiol 2012; 21(4): 28-36.
  2. Akbari M, Sheibani F, Hosseini MS, Jafari S. Relation between Speech sample size and Mean length 5 long utterances with Mother Education J. Speech-Lang. Commun. Disord 2014; 3(2): 40-5.
  3. Condouris K, Meyer E, Tager-Flusberg H. The relationship between standardized measures of language and measures of spontaneous speech in children with autism. Am J Speech Lang Pathol 2003; 12(3): 349-58.
  4. Tarameshlo M, Jalaei S, Rastagarian Zadeh N, Sheikh Najdi A, et al. Review of Speech & Language Assessment Tests. J Mod Rehabil  2010; 4(1): 38-44.
  5. Oryadi Zanjani M, Mahmoodi Bakhtiari B, Vahab M, Jafari S. Efficiency of picture description and storytelling methods in language sampling according to the mean length of utterance index. Audiol 2012; 21(3): 18-23.
  6. Justice LM, Bowles RP, Pence K, Gosse CS. A scalable tool for assessing children's language abilities within a narrative context:The NAP Narrative Assessment Protocol. ECRQ 2010;25(2): 218-34.
  7. Stockman IJ. The promises and pitfalls of language sample analysis as an assessment tool for linguistic minority children. LSHSS 1996; 27: 355-66.
  8. Soleymani Z, Nematzadeh S, Gholami Tehrani L, Rahgozar M. The reliability of language performance measurement in language sample analysis of children aged 5-6 years. Audiol 2014; 23(1): 21-9. [Persian]
  9. Afkhami Ardakani E, Sharifi daramadi P, Alijani F. Comparison of conversation, free play and story generation as types of sampling in persian children. J. Educ. Psychol 2011; 7(20): 51-68.  [Persian]
  10. Blau A. F., Lahey M., Oleksiuk-Veles A. Planning of goals for intervention: language testing or sampling? EC 1984; 51(1): 78-79.
  11. Cowan P. A., Weber J., Hoddinott B. A., Klein J. Mean length of spoken response as a function of stimulus, experimenter and subject. Child Dev 1967; 38(1):191-203.
  12. Shipley K, McAfee J. Assessment in speech-language pathology. 4, editor. USA: Delmar Cengage Learning; 2009.
  13. Gavin W, Giles L. Sample Size Effects on Temporal Reliability of Language Sample Measures of Preschool Children. J Speech Lang Hear Res 1996; 39(6): 1258-1262.
  14. Southwood F., Russell A. F. Comparison of Conversation, Freeplay, and Story Generation as Methods of Language Sample Elicitation. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2004; 47(2): 366-376.
  15. Kazemi Y, Taheri A, Kiyanfar F, Shafie M, et al. Mean length of utterance (MLU) in typically-developing 2; 6-5; 6 year-old Farsi-speaking children in Iran. J Res Rehabil Sci 2012; 8(5): 928-37 [Persian]
  16. 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): 323-42.
  17. Singh S, Kent RD. Singular's illustrated dictionary of speech-language pathology. San Diego, CA: Singular Pub.Group; 2000.
  18. Nicolosi L, Harryman E, Kresheck J. Terminology of Communication Disorders: Speech-Language-Hearing.Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 2004.
  19. Hoof E. Language Development. 4th ed. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth; 2009.
  20. Jalilevand N, Ebrahimipur M, Purqarib J. Mean length of utterance and grammatical morphemes in speech of two Farsi-speaking children. Audiol 2012; 21(2): 96-108.
  21. Brown R. A first language: the early stages. Cambridge MA: Harvard university press; 1973.
  22. Dethorne LS, Johnson BW, Loeb JW. A closer look at MLU: what does it really measure? Clin Linguist Phon 2005; 19(8): 635-48.
  23. Tommerdahl J, Kilpatrick C. The reliability of morphological analyses in language samples. Lang Testing 2013; 31(1): 3-18.
  24. Casby M. An examination of the relationship of sample size and mean length of utterance for children with developmental language impairment. Child Lang. Teach. Ther 2011; 27(3): 286-9.
  25. Guoa L-Y, Eisenbergb S. Sample Length Affects the Reliability of Language Sample Measures in   3Year-Olds: Evidence from Parent-Elicited Conversational Samples. LSHSS 2015; 46: 141-53.
  26. Rondal JA, DeFays D. Reliability of mean length of utterance as a function of sample size in early language development. J Genet Psychol 1978; 133(2): 305-6.
  27. Daniel W.W. Biostatistics: a foundation for analysis in the health sciences. Tehran: Amirkabir, 2011. P. 121-122. [Persian]
  28. Sajedi F, Vameqhi R, Keraskian mojembari A, Habibollahi A, et al. Standardization and validation of the ASQ developmental disorders screening tool in children of Tehran city. Tehran Univ Med J. 2012; 70 (7): 436-446. [Persian]
  29. Nilipour R. Persian Aphasia Test (Pictorial and Written Stimuli). Tehran: University of Social Welfare and Rehabilitation Sciences, 2011. P. 1. [Persian]
  30. Nilipour R, Pour Shahbaz A, Ghoreishi ZS, Yousefi A. Reliability and Validity of Persian Aphasia Battery Test. Salmand Iran J Ageing 2016; 10(4):182-91. [Persian]
  31. Jalilevand N. Development of speech and language in Persian children. Tehran: Danjeh, 2012; 43-44 [Persian]
  32. Jalilevand N, Kamali M, Modarresi Y, Kazemi Y. The Persian developmental sentence scoring as a clinical measure of morphosyntax in children. Med J Islam Repub Iran 2016; 30:435.
  33. Available from:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-drop_language.

Journal of Paramedical Sciences & Rehabilitation
Volume 8, Issue 1
Spring 2019
Pages 17-25