JSLHR
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol.44 156-164 February 2001. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2001/014)
© American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow My Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Johnston, J. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Johnston, J. R.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Facebook   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati   Add to Twitter  
What's this?

An Alternate MLU Calculation

Magnitude and Variability of Effects

Judith R. Johnston 1
1 University of British Columbia Vancouver, British Columbia Canada

jrj{at}audiospeech.ubc.ca

This study investigated the effect of removing elliptical question responses, imitative utterances, and single-word Yes/No responses before calculating MLU. Forty-seven language samples from preschoolers with and without language impairment were analyzed. Initial MLUs ranged from 2.0 to 6.5 across both groups. The alternate calculation procedures resulted in an average 18% increase in the MLU index, with individual samples increasing as little as 3% or as much as 49%. The magnitude of the effect was primarily related to discourse properties, although in the SLI group there were secondary relationships to language level and proficiency. The observed variation in the discourse properties of language samples makes the alternate MLU index attractive to clinicians and researchers.

KEY WORDS: language assessment, mean length of utterance, MLU, language samples

Submitted on April 11, 2000
Accepted on October 9, 2000


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Facebook Facebook   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 LSHSSHome page
L. Girolametto, E. Weitzman, P. Lefebvre, and J. Greenberg
The Effects of In-Service Education to Promote Emergent Literacy in Child Care Centers: A Feasibility Study
Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch, January 1, 2007; 38(1): 72 - 83.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JSLHRHome page
M. L. Rice, S. M. Redmond, and L. Hoffman
Mean Length of Utterance in Children With Specific Language Impairment and in Younger Control Children Shows Concurrent Validity and Stable and Parallel Growth Trajectories.
J Speech Lang Hear Res, August 1, 2006; 49(4): 793 - 808.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 JSLHRHome page
S. Miles, R. Chapman, and H. Sindberg
Sampling Context Affects MLU in the Language of Adolescents With Down Syndrome.
J Speech Lang Hear Res, April 1, 2006; 49(2): 325 - 337.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 First LanguageHome page
M. D. Parker and K. Brorson
A comparative study between mean length of utterance in morphemes (MLUm) and mean length of utterance in words (MLUw)
First Language, October 1, 2005; 25(3): 365 - 376.
[Abstract] [PDF]


HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
All ASHA Journals AJA AJSLP JSLHR LSHSS
Copyright © 2001 by the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.