Is putting SUGAR (Sampling utterances of grammatical analysis revised) into language sample analysis a good thing? A response to Pavelko and Owens (2017)

Research output: Contribution to journalLetter

2 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Purpose: In this letter, the authors respond to Pavelko and Owens’ (2017) newly advanced set of procedures for language sample analysis: Sampling Utterances and Grammatical Analysis Revised (SUGAR). Method: The authors contrast some of the new guidelines for transcription, morpheme segmentation, and language sample elicitation in SUGAR with traditional conventions for language sample analysis (LSA). They address the potential impact of the new guidelines on some of the target measures in SUGAR—mean length of utterances in morphemes (MLUm), words per sentence (WPS), and clauses per sentence (CPS)—and provide their suggestions. Results: Inclusion of partially intelligible utterances in SUGAR may over-or underestimate children’s MLUm and reduce the reliability of computing WPS. Counting derivational morphemes and the component morphemes of catenatives (e.g., gonna) may result in overestimation of children’s morphosyntactic skills. Conclusion: Further data are needed to determine whether MLUm including derivational morphemes and the component morphemes of catenatives is a better measure of children’s morphosyntactic skills than MLUm excluding those morphemes. Pending such data, the authors recommend maintaining traditional LSA conventions and measures. Furthermore, free, fast automated utilities already exist that reduce barriers for clinicians to conduct informative, in-depth LSA.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)622-627
Number of pages6
JournalLanguage, speech, and hearing services in schools
Volume49
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jul 2018

Fingerprint

Language
language
Guidelines
Utterance
Language Sample Analysis
Morpheme
Sampling
inclusion
Length

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Speech and Hearing
  • Language and Linguistics
  • Linguistics and Language

Cite this

@article{4027301bc53d483dbe9c9556ffd68986,
title = "Is putting SUGAR (Sampling utterances of grammatical analysis revised) into language sample analysis a good thing? A response to Pavelko and Owens (2017)",
abstract = "Purpose: In this letter, the authors respond to Pavelko and Owens’ (2017) newly advanced set of procedures for language sample analysis: Sampling Utterances and Grammatical Analysis Revised (SUGAR). Method: The authors contrast some of the new guidelines for transcription, morpheme segmentation, and language sample elicitation in SUGAR with traditional conventions for language sample analysis (LSA). They address the potential impact of the new guidelines on some of the target measures in SUGAR—mean length of utterances in morphemes (MLUm), words per sentence (WPS), and clauses per sentence (CPS)—and provide their suggestions. Results: Inclusion of partially intelligible utterances in SUGAR may over-or underestimate children’s MLUm and reduce the reliability of computing WPS. Counting derivational morphemes and the component morphemes of catenatives (e.g., gonna) may result in overestimation of children’s morphosyntactic skills. Conclusion: Further data are needed to determine whether MLUm including derivational morphemes and the component morphemes of catenatives is a better measure of children’s morphosyntactic skills than MLUm excluding those morphemes. Pending such data, the authors recommend maintaining traditional LSA conventions and measures. Furthermore, free, fast automated utilities already exist that reduce barriers for clinicians to conduct informative, in-depth LSA.",
author = "Sarita Eisenberg",
year = "2018",
month = "7",
doi = "https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17-0084",
language = "English",
volume = "49",
pages = "622--627",
journal = "Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools",
issn = "0161-1461",
publisher = "American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA)",
number = "3",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Is putting SUGAR (Sampling utterances of grammatical analysis revised) into language sample analysis a good thing? A response to Pavelko and Owens (2017)

AU - Eisenberg, Sarita

PY - 2018/7

Y1 - 2018/7

N2 - Purpose: In this letter, the authors respond to Pavelko and Owens’ (2017) newly advanced set of procedures for language sample analysis: Sampling Utterances and Grammatical Analysis Revised (SUGAR). Method: The authors contrast some of the new guidelines for transcription, morpheme segmentation, and language sample elicitation in SUGAR with traditional conventions for language sample analysis (LSA). They address the potential impact of the new guidelines on some of the target measures in SUGAR—mean length of utterances in morphemes (MLUm), words per sentence (WPS), and clauses per sentence (CPS)—and provide their suggestions. Results: Inclusion of partially intelligible utterances in SUGAR may over-or underestimate children’s MLUm and reduce the reliability of computing WPS. Counting derivational morphemes and the component morphemes of catenatives (e.g., gonna) may result in overestimation of children’s morphosyntactic skills. Conclusion: Further data are needed to determine whether MLUm including derivational morphemes and the component morphemes of catenatives is a better measure of children’s morphosyntactic skills than MLUm excluding those morphemes. Pending such data, the authors recommend maintaining traditional LSA conventions and measures. Furthermore, free, fast automated utilities already exist that reduce barriers for clinicians to conduct informative, in-depth LSA.

AB - Purpose: In this letter, the authors respond to Pavelko and Owens’ (2017) newly advanced set of procedures for language sample analysis: Sampling Utterances and Grammatical Analysis Revised (SUGAR). Method: The authors contrast some of the new guidelines for transcription, morpheme segmentation, and language sample elicitation in SUGAR with traditional conventions for language sample analysis (LSA). They address the potential impact of the new guidelines on some of the target measures in SUGAR—mean length of utterances in morphemes (MLUm), words per sentence (WPS), and clauses per sentence (CPS)—and provide their suggestions. Results: Inclusion of partially intelligible utterances in SUGAR may over-or underestimate children’s MLUm and reduce the reliability of computing WPS. Counting derivational morphemes and the component morphemes of catenatives (e.g., gonna) may result in overestimation of children’s morphosyntactic skills. Conclusion: Further data are needed to determine whether MLUm including derivational morphemes and the component morphemes of catenatives is a better measure of children’s morphosyntactic skills than MLUm excluding those morphemes. Pending such data, the authors recommend maintaining traditional LSA conventions and measures. Furthermore, free, fast automated utilities already exist that reduce barriers for clinicians to conduct informative, in-depth LSA.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85049752364&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17-0084

DO - https://doi.org/10.1044/2018_LSHSS-17-0084

M3 - Letter

C2 - 29710199

VL - 49

SP - 622

EP - 627

JO - Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools

JF - Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools

SN - 0161-1461

IS - 3

ER -