CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 51Language Development and DisordersHearing Loss and RehabilitationHearing Impairment and Communication

Sample length affects the reliability of language sample measures in 3-year-olds: evidence from parent-elicited conversational samples

Open access
Guo, Ling-Yu, Eisenberg, Sarita·2015·Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools
DOI 10.1044/2015_lshss-14-0052PMC PMC4610271
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Purpose: The goal of this study was to investigate the extent to which sample length affected the reliability of total number of words (TNW), number of different words (NDW), and mean length of C-units in morphemes (MLCUm) in parent-elicited conversational samples for 3-year-olds. Method: Participants were sixty 3-year-olds. A 22-min language sample was collected from each child during free play with the parent in the laboratory. Samples of 1, 3, 7, and 10 min were extracted from the 22-min samples. TNW, NDW, and MLCUm were computed from each shorter sample and the 22-min sample. TNW and NDW were adjusted by number of minutes for comparisons. The differences and correlations between each shorter sample cut and the 22-min sample on MLCUm and adjusted TNW and NDW were computed. Results: The shorter samples and the 22-min samples significantly differed in adjusted TNW and NDW, but not in MLCUm. TNW reached an acceptable reliability level (i.e., r = .90) in 7-min samples. NDW and MLCUm approached the acceptable reliability level ( r s = .88) in 7-min samples and reached it in 10-min samples. Conclusion: For conversational language samples with similar collection procedures, samples of 7 to 10 min are desirable for calculating TNW, NDW, and MLCUm in 3-year-olds.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/2015_lshss-14-0052

Cites

65 of 65 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Analyzing the first 200 intelligible utterances for each child ensures a representative language sample at each time point.

    “Following this recommendation, we analyzed the first 200 intelligible utterances for each child to ensure a representative language sample at each time point.”

    From The roles of L1 transfer, L2 exposure, and morphological salience in bilingual children's L2 English morphological development (2025) · cites this paper as Guo and Eisenberg, 2015

    The Clinical Implications section (page unavailable) supports using a sufficiently long conversational sample, but recommends approximately 91 C-units for the measures studied in 3-year-olds—not the first 200 utterances. The Materials and Procedure section says the analysis included only intelligible, complete, spontaneous C-units. The paper does not establish that taking the first 200 ensures a representative sample at each time point. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Using at least 50-100 utterances or a 7-10-min language sample yields a representative and reliable measure of a child's language use.

    “Previous research on language sample analysis recommends using at least 50–100 utterances or a 7–10-min language sample to obtain a representative and reliable measure of a child's language use (e.g., Guo and Eisenberg, 2015).”

    From The roles of L1 transfer, L2 exposure, and morphological salience in bilingual children's L2 English morphological development (2025) · cites this paper as Guo and Eisenberg, 2015

    The Introduction reports a recommendation of 50–100 utterances, but says those samples take about 10–15 minutes, not 7–10 minutes. The Conclusions support 10-minute samples for specified measures in parent-elicited samples from 3-year-olds; they say 7-minute samples could also be used, while the Clinical Implications note that two measures fell just below the study's reliability benchmark at 7 minutes. The claim overgeneralizes those findings to a child's language use without the study's age, setting, and measure qualifications. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The inclusion of 200 intelligible utterances exceeds the minimum requirement suggested by Guo and Eisenberg (2015), further enhancing the representativeness of the language samples.

    “The inclusion of 200 intelligible utterance exceeds the minimum requirement suggested by Guo and Eisenberg (2015), further enhancing the representativeness of the language samples.”

    From The roles of L1 transfer, L2 exposure, and morphological salience in bilingual children's L2 English morphological development (2025) · cites this paper as Guo and Eisenberg, 2015

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Dawson, J., Stout, C., Eyer, J., Tattersall, P., Fonkalsrud, J., & Croley, K. (2004). Structured Photographic Expressive Language Test-Preschool: Second Edition. DeKalb, IL: Janelle.
  2. Fluharty, N. (2001). Fluharty Preschool Speech and Language Screening Test-Second Edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Guo, L.-Y., & Eisenberg, S.
Affiliations
  • University at Buffalo, State University of New York (US)
  • Montclair State University (US)
ORCID
Guo, Ling-Yu
Venue
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools
Publisher
American Speech Language Hearing Association
Published
2015-04
Volume
46
Issue
2
Pages
141-153
ISSN
  • 0161-1461 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9129
DOI
10.1044/2015_lshss-14-0052
PMC
PMC4610271
OpenAlex
W2085581407
Cited by
51
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2015: 1
FWCI
4.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (R21DC009218)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Hearing Loss and Rehabilitation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Hearing Impairment and Communication
Keywords
sample size, reliability statistics, three-year-old children, mean length of utterance, language assessment, early childhood language
MeSH terms
Child Language, Child, Preschool, Female, Humans, Language Tests, Male, Parents, Play and Playthings, Time Factors, Reproducibility of Results

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review