Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 49Language Development and DisordersVoice and Speech DisordersStuttering Research and Treatment

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 33 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Language Sample Analysis in Clinical Practice: Speech-Language Pathologists' Barriers, Facilitators, and Needs

Open access
Klatte, Inge S., van Heugten, Vera, Zwitserlood, Rob, Gerrits, Ellen·2022·Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools
DOI 10.1044/2021_lshss-21-00026
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Purpose Most speech-language pathologists (SLPs) working with children with developmental language disorder (DLD) do not perform language sample analysis (LSA) on a regular basis, although they do regard LSA as highly informative for goal setting and evaluating grammatical therapy. The primary aim of this study was to identify facilitators, barriers, and needs related to performing LSA by Dutch SLPs working with children with DLD. The secondary aim was to investigate whether a training would change the actual performance of LSA. Method A focus group with 11 SLPs working in Dutch speech-language pathology practices was conducted. Barriers, facilitators, and needs were identified using thematic analysis and categorized using the theoretical domain framework. To address the barriers, a training was developed using software program CLAN. Changes in barriers and use of LSA were evaluated with a survey sent to participants before, directly after, and 3 months posttraining. Results The barriers reported in the focus group were SLPs' lack of knowledge and skills, time investment, negative beliefs about their capabilities, differences in beliefs about their professional role, and no reimbursement from health insurance companies. Posttraining survey results revealed that LSA was not performed more often in daily practice. Using CLAN was not the solution according to participating SLPs. Time investment remained a huge barrier. Conclusions A training in performing LSA did not resolve the…

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1044/2021_lshss-21-00026

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Jansonius, K. , Ketelaars, M. , Borgers, M. , Van den Heuvel, E. , Roeyers, H. , Manders, E. , & Zink, I. (2014). Renfrew Taalschalen Nederlandse Aanpassing [Renfrew Language Scales Dutch Adaptation] . Antwerpen/Apeldoorn.
  2. Kort, W. , Compaan, E. , Schittekatte, M. , & Dekker, P. (2010). CELF-4-NL Test voor diagnose en evaluatie van taalproblemen [CELF-4-NL Test for diagnosis and evaluation of language problems] . Pearson Assessment and Information.
  3. Gerrits, E. , de Jong, J. , Zwitserlood, R. , & Klatte, I. (2019). The Netherlands vignette. In J. Law , C. Murphy , C. McKean , & E. Thordardottir (Eds.), The theory and practice of managing the child with language impairment—Across Europe and beyond. Routledge.
  4. Miller, J. (2010). Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT): English version 2010 [Computer software] . SALT Software.
  5. Schlichting, L. (2017). TARSP Taal Analyse Remediëring en Screening Procedure: taalontwikkelingsschaal van Nederlandse kinderen van 1–4 jaar met aanvullende structuren tot 6 jaar [Language Analysis Remediation and Screening Procedure: Language development scale of Dutch children aged 1–4 years with additional structures until age 6 years] . Pearson.
  6. Van Ierland, M. (1980). In J. Verbeek , L. van den Dungen , & A. Bakker (Eds.), Spontane Taal Analyse Procedure (STAP). Verantwoording van het STAP-instrument [Spontaneous Language Analysis Procedure (STAP). Scientific justification of the STAP-instrument] . Universiteit van Amsterdam.
  7. Wiegers, J. J. (1996). GRAMAT op basis van 50 uitingen [Grammatical analysis of developmental language disorders based on 50 utterances]. Logopedie en Foniatrie, 68, 125–128.

Cited by

See all 49

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Klatte, I. S., van Heugten, V., Zwitserlood, R., & Gerrits, E.
Affiliations
University of Applied Sciences Utrecht (NL)
ORCID
Venue
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools
Publisher
American Speech Language Hearing Association
Published
2022-01-05
Volume
53
Issue
1
Pages
1-16
ISSN
  • 0161-1461 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-9129
DOI
10.1044/2021_lshss-21-00026
OpenAlex
W3210043497
Cited by
49
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 6
FWCI
11.36
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Nationaal Regieorgaan Praktijkgericht Onderzoek SIA
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › Speech and Hearing › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Stuttering Research and Treatment
Keywords
language sample analysis, speech-language pathologists, specific language impairment, children, barriers and facilitators, professional training, time investment, health insurance reimbursement, professional beliefs, co-design, narrative task
MeSH terms
Pathologists, Attitude of Health Personnel, Child, Humans, Language, Surveys and Questionnaires, Speech, Speech-Language Pathology

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.