A Sweet Surprise: Using SUGAR Language Analysis to Develop Intervention Goals

Abstract

The purposes of this tutorial are twofold – first, to present data documenting elementary-aged children’s production of complex syntax in language samples collected using the SUGAR (Sampling Utterances and Grammatical Analysis Revised) method of language sample analysis, and second, to offer step-by-step instructions detailing how to analyze a SUGAR language sample for complex syntax. The tutorial begins with a review of coordinate and subordinate clauses, supported by data documenting elementary-aged children’s production of those structures. Next, a case study is presented to demonstrate how to use the SUGAR method to analyze a sample for coordinate and subordinate clauses. Sub-analysis of a SUGAR language sample can be used to assist SLPs with intervention planning. Specifically, SLPs can use sub-analysis when identifying appropriate intervention targets, tracking progress in therapy, and facilitating conversations with teachers and others regarding curriculum-relevance.

Keywords

language assessment elementary school age evidence-based practices acquisition/development language/linguistics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Balthazar

C. H.

Scott

C. M.

(2017). Complex sentence intervention. In McCauley

R. J.

Fey

M. E.

Gillam

R. B.

(Eds.), Treatment of language disorders in children: Second edition (pp. 349–387). Brookes Publishing.

Campbell

Tomasello

(2001). The acquisition of English dative constructions. Applied Psycholinguistics, 22, 253–267. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716401002065

Costanza-Smith

(2010). The clinical utility of language samples. SIG 1 Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 17(1), 9–15. https://doi.org/10.1044/lle17.1.9

Guo

L. Y.

Schneider

Harrison

(2021). Clausal density between ages 4 and 9 years for the Edmonton narrative norms instrument: Reference data and psychometric properties. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 52(1), 354–368. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_LSHSS-20-00043

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2021). Common core state standards for English language arts and literacy in history/social studies, science, and technical subjects. https://www.thecorestandards.org/

Overton

Wren

(2014). Outcome measurement using naturalistic language samples: A feasibility pilot study using language transcription software and speech and language therapy assistants. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 30(2), 221–229. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265659013519251

Owens

R. E.

Pavelko

S. L.

(2020). Sampling Utterances And Grammatical Analysis Revised (SUGAR): New normative values for language sample analysis in 7- to 11-year-old children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 51, 734–744.

Owens

R. E.

Pavelko

S. L.

Bambinelli

(2018). Moving beyond MLU: Analyzing language samples to identify intervention targets. Perspectives ASHA SIGs, 3 (SIG.1), 5–22. https://doi.org/10.1044/persp3.SIG1.5

Owens

R. E.

Pavelko

S. L.

Hahs-Vaughn

D. L.

(2024). Growth of complex syntax: Coordinate and subordinate clause use in elementary school-aged children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 55(3), 714–723.

10.

Pavelko

S. L.

Owens

R. E.

(2017). Sampling Utterances and Grammatical Analysis Revised (SUGAR): New normative values for language sample analysis measures. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 48, 197–215. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_LSHSS-17-0022

11.

Pavelko

S. L.

Owens

R. E.

(2023). A sweet tutorial to the SUGAR method of language sampling. Perspectives, 8(1), 32–49. https://doi.org/10.1044/2022_PERSP-22-00134

12.

Pavelko

S. L.

Owens

R. E.

Hahs-Vaughn

D. L.

(2025). Changes in the production of complex syntax by elementary-aged school children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 56(4), 1002–1010. https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_LSHSS-24-00141

13.

Price

L. H.

Hendricks

Cook

(2010). Incorporating computer-aided language sample analysis into clinical practice. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41(2), 206–222. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2009/08-0054)

14.

Rowland

C. F.

Pine

J. M.

Lieven

E. V. M.

Theakston

A. L.

(2005). The incidence of error in young children’s wh-questions. Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research, 48, 384–404. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/027)

15.

Rowland

C. F.

Theakston

A. L.

(2009). The acquisition of auxiliary syntax: A longitudinal elicitation study. Part 2: The modals and auxiliary DO. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 52, 1471–1492. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0037a)

16.

Salomo

Lieven

Tomasello

(2013). Children’s ability to answer different types of questions. Journal of Child Language, 40, 469–491. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000912000050

17.

Santelmann

Berk

Austin

Somashekar

Lust

(2002). Continuity and development in the acquisition of inversion in yes/no questions: Dissociating movement and inflection. Journal of Child Language, 29, 813–842. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000902005299

18.

Scott

C. M.

(1987, March 29–April 3). Summarizing text: Content effects in language disordered children [Poster session]. First International Symposium, Specific Language Disorders in Children, Reading, England.

19.

Scott

C. M.

Windsor

(2000). General language performance measures in spoken and written narrative and expository discourse of school-age children with language learning disabilities. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43(2), 324–339. https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4302.324

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.02 MB