Research Article

Efficiency of picture description and storytelling methods in nguage sampling according to the mean length of utterance index

Abstract

Background and Aim: Due to limitation of standardized tests for Persian-speakers with language disorders, spontaneous language sampling collection is an important part of assessment of language protocol. Therefore, selection of a language sampling method, which will provide information of linguistic competence in a short time, is important. Therefore, in this study, we compared the language samples elicited with picture description and storytelling methods in order to determine the effectiveness of the two methods.
Methods: In this study 30 first-grade elementary school girls were selected with simple sampling. To investigate picture description method, we used two illustrated stories with four pictures. Language samples were collected through storytelling by telling a famous children’s story. To determine the effectiveness of these two methods the two indices of duration of sampling and mean length of utterance (MLU) were compared.
Results: There was no significant difference between MLU in description and storytelling methods (p>0.05). However, duration of sampling was shorter in the picture description method than the story telling method (p<0.05).
Conclusion: Findings show that, the two methods of picture description and storytelling have the same potential in language sampling. Since, picture description method can provide language samples with the same complexity in a shorter time than storytelling, it can be used as a beneficial method for clinical purposes.

1. Shipley KG, McAfee JG. Assessment in speech-language pathology: a resource manual. 4th ed. New York: Delmar Cengage Learning; 2009.
2. Southwood F, Russell AF. Comparison of conversation, freeplay, and story generation as methods of language sample elicitation. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004;47(2):366-76.
3. Feagans L, Short EJ. Developmental differences in the comprehension and production of narratives by reading-disabled and normally achieving children. Child Dev. 1984;55(5):1727-36.
4. Sleight CC, Prinz PM. Use of abstracts, orientations, and codas in narration by language-disordered and nondisordered children. J Speech Hear Disord. 1985;50(4):361-71.
5. Klee T, Stokes SF, Wong AM, Fletcher P, Gavin WJ. Utterance length and lexical diversity in Cantonese-speaking children with and without specific language impairment. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2004;47(6):1396-410.
6. Miller JF, Chapman RS. The relation between age and mean length of utterance in morphemes. J Speech Hear Res. 1981;24(2):154-61.
7. Evans JL, Craig HK. Language sample collection and analysis: interview compared to freeplay assessment contexts. J Speech Hear Res. 1992;35(2):343-53.
8. Wagner CR, Nettelbladt U, SahlénB, Nilholm C. Conversation versus narration in pre-school children with language impairment. Int J Lang Commun Disord. 2000;35(1):83-93.
9. Oryadi-Zanjani MM, Ghorbani R, Keikha F. Standardization of total numbers of word, mean length of utterance and mean length of 5 long sentences in normal Persian language children between 2 to 5 years old in Semnan city. Koomesh. 2006;7(3):177-82. Persian.
10. Justice LM, Bowles RP, Kaderavek JN, Ukrainetz TA, Eisenberg SL, Gillam RB. The index of narrative microstructure: a clinical tool for analyzing school-age children's narrative performances. Am J Speech Lang Pathol .2006;15(2):177-91.
IssueVol 21 No 3 (2012) QRcode
SectionResearch Article(s)
Keywords
Language sampling picture description storytelling mean length of utterance duration of sampling
Rights and permissions
Creative Commons License This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.
How to Cite
1.
Oryadi zanjani MM, Mahmoodi Bakhtiari B, vahab M, jafari S. Efficiency of picture description and storytelling methods in nguage sampling according to the mean length of utterance index. Aud Vestib Res. 2017;21(3):18-23.