Clinician survey of language sampling practices in Australia
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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).”
From Early Identification of Language Disorders Using Natural Language Processing and Machine Learning: Challenges and Emerging Approaches (2025) · cites this paper as 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
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- 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