The DOI matches its Crossref record.
General Language Performance Measures in Spoken and Written Narrative and Expository Discourse of School-Age Children With Language Learning Disabilities
Abstract
Language performance in naturalistic contexts can be characterized by general measures of productivity, fluency, lexical diversity, and grammatical complexity and accuracy. The use of such measures as indices of language impairment in older children is open to questions of method and interpretation. This study evaluated the extent to which 10 general language performance measures (GLPM) differentiated school-age children with language learning disabilities (LLD) from chronological-age (CA) and language-age (LA) peers. Children produced both spoken and written summaries of two educational videotapes that provided models of either narrative or expository (informational) discourse. Productivity measures, including total T-units, total words, and words per minute, were significantly lower for children with LLD than for CA children. Fluency (percent T-units with mazes) and lexical diversity (number of different words) measures were similar for all children. Grammatical complexity as measured by words per T-unit was significantly lower for LLD children. However, there was no difference among groups for clauses per T-unit. The only measure that distinguished children with LLD from both CA and LA peers was the extent of grammatical error. Effects of discourse genre and modality were consistent across groups. Compared to narratives, expository summaries were shorter, less fluent (spoken versions), more complex (words per T-unit), and more error prone. Written summaries were shorter and had more errors than spoken versions. For many LLD and LA children, expository writing was exceedingly difficult. Implications for accounts of language impairment in older children are discussed.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Narrative as a tool for the assessment of linguistic and pragmatic impairments
Botting, N. (2002) · Child Language Teaching and Therapy · doi:10.1191/0265659002ct224oa · Cited by 445
Kohnert, K. (2010) · Journal of Communication Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2010.02.002 · Cited by 425
Comparing Narrative and Expository Text Construction Across Adolescence: A Developmental Paradox
Berman, R. A., & Nir-sagiv, B. (2007) · Discourse Processes · doi:10.1080/01638530709336894 · Cited by 321
Modeling the development of written language
Wagner, R. K., Puranik, C. S., Foorman, B., Foster, E., Wilson, L. G., Tschinkel, E., & Kantor, P. T. (2011) · Reading and Writing · doi:10.1007/s11145-010-9266-7 · Cited by 278
Use of Language Sample Analysis by School-Based SLPs: Results of a Nationwide Survey
Pavelko, S. L., Owens, R. E., Ireland, M., & Hahs-Vaughn, D. L. (2016) · Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools · doi:10.1044/2016_lshss-15-0044 · Cited by 179
Metadata
- Authors
- Scott, C. M., & Windsor, J.
- Venue
- Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
- Published
- 2000-04
- Volume
- 43
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 324-339
- ISSN
- 1092-4388 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-9102
- OpenAlex
- W2006835868
- Cited by
- 545
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 7.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: General Language Performance Measures in Spoken and Written Narrative and Expository Discourse of School-Age Children With Language Learning Disabilities. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1044/jslhr.4302.324
- The paper
- Scott, C. M., & Windsor, J. (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. https://doi.org/10.1044/jslhr.4302.324
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.