Download PDF
Semin Speech Lang 2016; 37(02): 063-073
DOI: 10.1055/s-0036-1580743
Thieme Medical Publishers 333 Seventh Avenue, New York, NY 10001, USA.

Child Language Data Exchange System Tools for Clinical Analysis

Brian MacWhinney
1   Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
,
Davida Fromm
1   Department of Psychology, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
25 April 2016 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Abstract

The Child Language Data Exchange System Project has developed methods for analyzing many aspects of child language development, including grammar, lexicon, discourse, gesture, phonology, and fluency. This article will describe the methods available for each of these six fields, and how they can be used for assessment in the clinical setting.

Keywords

Databases - production - gesture - lexicon - syntax
 

  • References

  • 1 Heilmann J. Myths and realities of language sample analysis. Perspect Lang Learn Educ 2010; 17: 4-8
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Dunn M, Flax J, Sliwinski M, Aram D. The use of spontaneous language measures as criteria for identifying children with specific language impairment: an attempt to reconcile clinical and research incongruence. J Speech Hear Res 1996; 39 (3) 643-654
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Bernstein RatnerN, Brundage SA. Clinician's Complete Guide to CLAN and Praat. Available at: http://childes.talkbank.org/manuals/clin-CLAN.pdf . 2015. Accessed March 24, 2016
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Kübler S, McDonald R, Nivre J. Dependency Parsing. San Rafael, CA: Morgan and Claypool; 2009
    Google Scholar
  • 5 Brown R. A First Language: The Early Stages. Cambridge, MA: Harvard; 1973
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 6 MacWhinney B, Fromm D. AphasiaBank as big data. Semin Speech Lang 2016; 37 (1) 10-22
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Rice ML, Wexler K. Toward tense as a clinical marker of specific language impairment in English-speaking children. J Speech Hear Res 1996; 39 (6) 1239-1257
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 van der Lely HK. Domain-specific cognitive systems: insight from Grammatical-SLI. Trends Cogn Sci 2005; 9 (2) 53-59
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Kjelgaard MM, Tager-Flusberg H. An investigation of language impairment in autism: implications for genetic subgroups. Lang Cogn Process 2001; 16 (2–3) 287-308
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Tager-Flusberg H, Paul R, Lord C. Language and communication in autism. In: Volkmar F, Paul R, Klin A, Cohen D, eds. Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley; 2005: 335-364
    Google Scholar
  • 11 Howell P. Recovering from Stuttering. New York: Psychology Press; 2011
    Google Scholar
  • 12 Booth JR, MacWhinney B, Thulborn KR, Sacco K, Voyvodic JT, Feldman HM. Developmental and lesion effects in brain activation during sentence comprehension and mental rotation. Dev Neuropsychol 2000; 18 (2) 139-169
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Karmiloff-Smith A, Brown JH, Grice S, Paterson S. Dethroning the myth: cognitive dissociations and innate modularity in Williams syndrome. Dev Neuropsychol 2003; 23 (1–2) 227-242
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lee L. Developmental Sentence Analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press; 1974
    Google Scholar
  • 15 Scarborough HS. Index of productive syntax. Appl Psycholinguist 1990; 11: 1-22
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Crystal D, Fletcher P, Garman M. The grammatical analysis of language disability. 2nd ed. London, UK: Cole and Whurr; 1989
    Google Scholar
  • 17 Lubetich S, Sagae K. Data-driven measurement of child language development with simple syntactic templates. Paper presented at: COLING2014, 2014; Dublin, Ireland
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Sahakian S, Snyder B. Automatically learning measures of child language development. Paper presented at: Proceedings of the 50th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics: Short Papers-Volume 2, 2012
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Malvern D, Richards B, Chipere N, Purán P. Lexical Diversity and Language Development. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2004
    CrossrefGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Fergadiotis G, Wright HH, Green SB. Psychometric evaluation of lexical diversity indices: assessing length effects. J Speech Lang Hear Res 2015; 58 (3) 840-852
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Covington MA, McFall JD. Cutting the Gordian knot: the moving-average type–token ratio (MATTR). J Quant Linguist 2010; 17 (2) 94-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 McCarthy PM, Jarvis S. MTLD, vocd-D, and HD-D: a validation study of sophisticated approaches to lexical diversity assessment. Behav Res Methods 2010; 42 (2) 381-392
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 McCarthy PM, Jarvis S. Voc-D: a theoretical and empirical evaluation. Lang Test 2007; 24: 459-488
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Kintsch W, Van Dijk T. Toward a model of text comprehension and production. Psychol Rev 1978; 85: 363-394
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Brown C, Snodgrass T, Kemper SJ, Herman R, Covington MA. Automatic measurement of propositional idea density from part-of-speech tagging. Behav Res Methods 2008; 40 (2) 540-545
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Kemper S, LaBarge E, Ferraro FR, Cheung H, Cheung H, Storandt M. On the preservation of syntax in Alzheimer's disease. Evidence from written sentences. Arch Neurol 1993; 50 (1) 81-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Goldman R, Fristoe M. The Goldman-Fristoe Test of Articulation–2. San Antonio, TX: Pearson Assessments; 2000
    Google Scholar
  • 28 Fudala JB, Reynolds WM. Arizona Articulation Proficiency Scale: Manual. Torrance, CA: Western Psychological Services; 1986
    Google Scholar
  • 29 Rose Y, MacWhinney B. The PhonBank Project: data and software-assisted methods for the study of phonology and phonological development. In: Durand J, Gut U, Kristoffersen G, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Corpus Phonology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2014: 380-401
    Google Scholar
  • 30 Computerized Profiling [computer program] . Version 9.7.0. Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University; 2006
    PubMed
  • 31 Computerized profiling (PROPH+) [computer program]. Version 9.7.0. San Antonio, TX: The Psychological Corporation; 1993
    Google Scholar
  • 32 Ingram D. The measurement of whole-word productions. J Child Lang 2002; 29 (4) 713-733
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Nelson LK, Bauer HR. Speech and language production at age 2: evidence for tradeoffs between linguistic and phonetic processing. J Speech Hear Res 1991; 34 (4) 879-892
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Bernstein Ratner N, Rooney B, MacWhinney B. Analysis of stuttering using CHILDES and CLAN. Clin Linguist Phon 1996; 10 (3) 169-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Boersma P, Weenink D. Praat, a System for Doing Phonetics by Computer. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Institute of Phonetic Sciences of the University of Amsterdam; 1996
    Google Scholar