Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

A comparison was made between imitated responses to Carrow's Elicited Language Inventory (CELI) and the spontaneous speech of ten language impaired children (LI). Responses to the CELI and selected utterances from the sample of spontaneous speech were analyzed in a manner similar to the procedure outlined by Carrow (1974a). While there was a high correlation between the proportion of errors on each task, there was also a significant difference between these proportions. All of the LI children had a lower mean proportion of errors on the language sample than on the CELI and discrepancies between the two were greater for the younger children with the lower mean length of utterances. Goals of intervention derived from the two sets of data also indicated differences. Three factors may have accounted for the discrepant scores-differences in lexical items, differences in the structural complexity of the sentences, and differences in the requirements of the two tasks. It is suggested that while standardized elicitation tasks, such as the CELI, serve to identify children with language impairments they may not be as useful as data from free speech samples for determining goals of intervention.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bloom, L. (1974). Talking, understanding, and thinking: Developmental relationship between receptive and expressive language. In R.L. Schiefelbusch and L. Lloyd (Eds.) Language Perspectives: Acquisition, Retaralation, and Intervention. Baltimore: University Park Press.

Bloom, L. & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development and language disorders. New York: J. Wiley and Sons.

Brinton, J. (1979). Sentence repetition tasks compared with expressive language performance. In D. Crystal (Ed.) Working with Larsp. New York: Elsevier.

Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.

Carrow, E. (1974A). Elicited language inventory. Austin, Texas: learning concepts. CARROW, E. (1974b). A test using elicited imitation in assessing grammatical structure in children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 39, 437-444.

Crystal, D. , Fletcher, P. & Garman, M. (1976). The grammatical analysis of language disability: A procedure for assessment and remediation. London: Arnold.

Cornelius, S. (1974). A comparison of the elicited language inventory with the developmental syntax screening procedure in assessing language disorders in children. Unpublished Master's Thesis. University of Texas, Austin, Texas.

Dever, R. (1972). A comparison of the results of a revised version of Berko's test of morphology with the free speech of mentally retarded children . Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 15, 169-178.

Dubendorfer, B. (1978). Elicited imitation as a measure of spontaneous language usage. Unpublished Master's Thesis. Hunter College of the City of New York.

10.

Fujiki, M. & Willbrand, M. (1982). A comparison of four informal methods of language evaluation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools , 13, 42-49.

11.

Hanif, L. & Siegel, G. (1981). The effects of context on verbal elicited imitation . Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 46, 27-30.

12.

Hood, L. & Lightbrown, P. (1978). What children do when asked to "Say what I say": Does elicited imitation measure linguistic knowledge ? Allied Health and Behavioral Science, 1, 195-220.

13.

Ingram, D. (1976). Phonological disability in children. London: Arnold Press.

14.

Lahey, M. , Launer, P. & Schiff-Myers, N. (1984). Prediction of production: Elicited imitation and spontaneous speech productions of Language disordered children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 4, 4, 317-343.

15.

Launer, P. & Lahey, M. (1981). From the 50's to the 80's in language assessment . Topics in Language Disorders, 1, 2, 11-30.

16.

Lee, L. ( 1971). Northwestern syntax screening test (NSST). Evanston, Illinois: The Northwestern University Press .

17.

Menyuk, P. (1963). A preliminary evaluation of grammatical capacity in children. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior , 2, 429-439.

18.

Muma, J. (1978). Language handbook. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

19.

Nelson, L. & Weber-Olsen, M. (1980). The Elicited Language Inventory and the influence of contextual cues. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders. 45, 549-563.

20.

Prutting, C. , Gallagher, T. & Mulac, A. (1975). The expressive portion of the NSST compared to a spontaneous language sample. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 40, 40-49.

21.

Rees, N. & Shulman, M. (1978). I don't understand what you mean by comprehension . Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 43, 208-219.

22.

Slobin, D. & Welsh, C. (1973). Elicited imitation as a research tool in developmental psycholinguistics. In C. Ferguson and D. Slobin (Eds.) Studies of child language development. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

23.

Smith, C. (1970). An experimental approach to children's linguistic competence. In J.R. Hayes (Ed.), Cognition and the development of language. New York: J. Wiley and Sons.

24.

Tyack, D. & Gottsleben, R. (1974). Language sampling, analysis and training: A handbook for teachers and clinicians. Palo Alto, California: Consulting Psychological Press .

25.

Warden, D. A note on the experimental elicitation of children's communicative competence . University of Stathclyde, Glascow . Unpublished manuscript.

Planning Goals for Intervention: Can a Language Test Serve as an Alternative to a Language Sample?

Abstract

Get full access to this article

References