Elicited vs. spontaneous language as methods for the assessment of grammatical development: The DEME assessment tool

Anny Castilla-Earls , Ana Teresa Pérez-Leroux , Alejandra Auza
{"title":"Elicited vs. spontaneous language as methods for the assessment of grammatical development: The DEME assessment tool","authors":"Anny Castilla-Earls ,&nbsp;Ana Teresa Pérez-Leroux ,&nbsp;Alejandra Auza","doi":"10.1016/j.rlfa.2021.02.002","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Introduction and objectives</h3><p>This study compares data collection approaches in the assessment of grammatical development in Spanish-speaking children. Specifically, we compared error rates produced in data collected using samples from spontaneous language versus elicited production, using both broad (overall) and narrow measures (errors with noun phrases).</p></div><div><h3>Methods and participants</h3><p>Monolingual-Spanish-speaking five-year-olds (<em>n</em> <!-->=<!--> <!-->55) were divided into typical language development (TL) and at-risk (Risk) according to a preexisting test, <em>Tamiz de Problemas del Lenguaje</em>. All children completed an elicited production and a narrative task.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>Children in the TL group outperform children in the Risk group in all measures used in this study. Statistically significant differences were found between children at Risk and TL children in both spontaneous and elicited language measures, although the effect size of the elicited language measures was considerably higher. Elicited and spontaneous tasks are more likely to produce results that are in accord than in disaccord. However, when results are in disaccord, the results almost always show low performance in elicited language but high performance in spontaneous language. Elicitation methods do not seem to have an impact on the type of error produced for neither narrow nor broad measures.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":56174,"journal":{"name":"Revista de Logopedia, Foniatria y Audiologia","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"2","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Revista de Logopedia, Foniatria y Audiologia","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0214460321000504","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Nursing","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 2

Abstract

Introduction and objectives

This study compares data collection approaches in the assessment of grammatical development in Spanish-speaking children. Specifically, we compared error rates produced in data collected using samples from spontaneous language versus elicited production, using both broad (overall) and narrow measures (errors with noun phrases).

Methods and participants

Monolingual-Spanish-speaking five-year-olds (n = 55) were divided into typical language development (TL) and at-risk (Risk) according to a preexisting test, Tamiz de Problemas del Lenguaje. All children completed an elicited production and a narrative task.

Results

Children in the TL group outperform children in the Risk group in all measures used in this study. Statistically significant differences were found between children at Risk and TL children in both spontaneous and elicited language measures, although the effect size of the elicited language measures was considerably higher. Elicited and spontaneous tasks are more likely to produce results that are in accord than in disaccord. However, when results are in disaccord, the results almost always show low performance in elicited language but high performance in spontaneous language. Elicitation methods do not seem to have an impact on the type of error produced for neither narrow nor broad measures.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
作为语法发展评估方法的诱导语言与自发语言:DEME评估工具
本研究比较了西班牙语儿童语法发展评估的数据收集方法。具体来说,我们使用广义(总体)和狭义(名词短语的错误)两种方法,比较了自发语言和诱导语言样本所收集数据的错误率。方法和参与者:根据先前的语言发展测试(Tamiz de Problemas del Lenguaje),将55名单语西班牙语5岁儿童(n = 55)分为典型语言发展(TL)和风险(Risk)两组。所有的孩子都完成了一个引出的作品和一个叙述任务。结果在本研究中,TL组儿童的各项指标均优于风险组儿童。尽管引导性语言测量的效应量要高得多,但在自发性语言测量和引导性语言测量中,高危儿童和TL儿童之间都存在统计学上的显著差异。引出的和自发的任务更有可能产生一致的结果,而不是不一致的结果。然而,当结果不一致时,结果几乎总是在引出语言中表现低,而在自发语言中表现高。引出方法似乎对狭义和广义测量所产生的误差类型没有影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.10
自引率
0.00%
发文量
28
期刊最新文献
Estilos de afrontamiento de padres de niños con fisura labio-alveolo-palatina en los Andes Centrales del Ecuador (Cuenca-Ambato) Dos medidas de producción fonológica para la identificación de comorbilidad en los trastornos de los sonidos del habla en niños mexicanos Marc Monfort o la centralidad psicológica del lenguaje en la Logopedia (y viceversa) M. Monfort: hacer y enseñar logopedia Reading comprehension skills in children with language development disorder—Systematic review
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1