Cited by 73Language Development and DisordersVoice and Speech DisordersStuttering Research and Treatment

Clinician survey of language sampling practices in Australia

Westerveld, Marleen F., Claessen, Mary·2014·International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology

Abstract

A national online survey was used to investigate spontaneous language sampling and analysis practices by speech-language pathologists working with children and adolescents. A total of 257 responses were received from clinicians around Australia. Results indicated that spontaneous language samples are collected on a routine basis in elicitation contexts deemed appropriate to the clients' age or developmental stage. However, language samples were generally short, often not recorded, and analysed informally. Consistent with previous research into language sampling practices, the main barrier to more detailed language sample analysis appears to be the time needed for transcription. Despite rapid technological advances in the last two decades, only 12.5% of the respondents reported using computer-assisted transcription and analysis procedures. Suggestions are made on how to promote change in clinical practice to ensure spontaneous language samples are transcribed and analysed in more detail. By transcribing the samples, detailed analysis of children's language performance can be undertaken, allowing for effective goal-setting and assisting in objective progress measuring during and following intervention.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3109/17549507.2013.871336

Cites

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Many SLPs report a preference for language sampling approaches relative to standardized norm-referenced tests but cite time constraints, lack of training opportunities, and lack of computing resources as major barriers.

    “Many SLPs report a preference for language sampling approaches relative to standardized norm-referenced tests but cite time constraints, lack of training opportunities, and lack of computing resources as major barriers (Calder et al., 2017; Pavelko et al., 2016; Westerveld & Claessen, 2014).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 20 · Cited by 73

Authors
Westerveld, M. F., & Claessen, M.
Affiliations
  • Griffith University (AU)
  • Curtin University (AU)
Corresponding author
Westerveld, Marleen F.
Venue
International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
Published
2014-01-21
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
242-249
ISSN
  • 1441-7049 (ISSN-L)
  • 1754-9507
  • 1754-9515
OpenAlex
W2108405241
Cited by
73
References
20
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 1
FWCI
7.04
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • eSpace (Curtin University) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Physiology › Voice and Speech Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Stuttering Research and Treatment
Keywords
speech-language pathologists, clinical practice, transcription, computer-assisted transcription, language sample analysis, children and adolescents, speech-language pathology services, progress measurement, goal setting
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Age Factors, Attitude to Computers, Australia, Child, Child Language, Child, Preschool, Humans, Language Disorders, Language Tests, Professional Practice, Speech Disorders, Speech-Language Pathology, Time Factors, Workload, Health Care Surveys

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