LSHSS
Tutorial
Using Language Sample Analysis to Assess
Spoken Language Production in
Adolescents
Jon F. Miller,a,b Karen Andriacchi,a,b and Ann Nockertsa,b
Purpose: This tutorial discusses the importance of language sample
analysis and how Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT)
software can be used to simplify the process and effectively assess the
spoken language production of adolescents.
Method: Over the past 30 years, thousands of language samples have
been collected from typical speakers, aged 3–18 years, in conversational
and narrative contexts. These samples have been formatted as reference
databases included with SALT. Using the SALT software, individual
samples are compared with age- and grade-matched samples selected
from these databases.
Results: Two case studies illustrate that comparison with database
samples of typical adolescents, matched
L
anguage sample analysis (LSA), as a data-
generating tool, is a powerful method of
documenting language use in everyday speaking
situations (Leadholm &
Miller, 1992; Paul, 2012). A sample of talking reveals an
individual’s ability to meet specific speaking demands.
These demands vary across contexts (e.g., conversation,
narration, exposition, and persuasion), and speakers may
have dif- ficulty in any one or all of these communication
tasks.
Language use for spoken communication is a foundation
for literacy attainment (Miller et al., 2006; Roskos, Tabors,
& Lenhart, 2009) and contributes to success in navigating
relationships for school, work, and community integra-
tion. This tutorial discusses the importance of LSA in effec-
tively assessing speakers’ spoken language. It describes how
Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) soft-
ware (Miller & Iglesias, 2012) can be used to simplify the
process, overcoming the hurdles of transcription and analy-
sis. The focus is on using LSA with adolescents and in-
cludes case studies to illustrate the effectiveness of using
language samples with comparison data to assess spoken
University of Wisconsin–Madison
a
b
SALT Software LLC, Madison, WI
Correspondence to Jon F. Miller: jfmille2@wisc.edu
Editor: Marilyn Nippold
Received July 7, 2015
Revision received September 2, 2015
Accepted November 30, 2015
DOI: 10.1044/2015_LSHSS-15-0051
Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
by grade and elicitation context, highlights language measures that are
higher or lower than the database mean values. Differences in values
are measured in standard deviations.
Conclusion: Language sample analysis remains a powerful method
of documenting language use in everyday speaking situations. A sample
of talking reveals an individual’s ability to meet specific speaking
demands.
These demands vary across contexts, and speakers can have difficulty
in any one or all of these communication tasks. Language use for
spoken communication is a foundation for literacy attainment and
contributes to success in navigating relationships for school, work, and
community participation.
language. Some discussion is also included relating to LSA
and written language.
Why LSA?
LSA has been considered the gold standard for asses-
sing spoken language production by researchers and clini-
cians for more than 90 years (Bloom & Lahey, 1978; Brown,
1973; Donaldson, 1986; Hart & Risley, 1995; Miller, 1982;
Miller, Andriacchi, & Nockerts, 2011; K. Nelson, 1973;
Piaget, 1926; Slobin, 1985; Weir, 1962). It is a method for
thoroughly describing language production and for
monitor- ing change associated with linguistic development,
variation in linguistic contexts, and/or change from
intervention. It can be used daily, weekly, monthly, or
yearly, providing ac- cess to a large range of word,
morpheme, syntax, and dis- course measures. It allows for
documentation of specific problems in a variety of contexts,
pinpointing strengths and weaknesses in spoken
language. LSA evaluates natural, functional language use
within real-life contexts. Language samples, elicited
properly, often substantiate the reason for referral, and the
variety of analyses help to pinpoint which features of
spoken language most and least impact effective
communication. LSA outcomes can address the aims
of assessment, answering questions such as “Does this
Disclosure: Jon F. Miller is CEO and co-owner of SALT Software, LLC, and has
a financial interest. Karen Andriacchi is an employee of SALT Software, LLC. Ann
Nockerts is COO and co-owner of SALT Software, LLC, and has a financial interest.
 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 47 • 99–112 • April 2016 • Copyright © 2016 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 99

Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 student qualify for services?”; “Which language features
most impact communication?”; and “How much progress
has been achieved over the past weeks?” These are ques-
tions clinicians are frequently asked to address, yet many
of the assessment tools available today are limited by age
range, sensitivity, cultural bias, and/or frequency of deliv-
ery. In contrast, language samples may be elicited from
speakers of any age, are sensitive to change, minimize cul-
tural bias, and may be repeated frequently (Heilmann &
Westerveld, 2013; Rojas & Iglesias, 2010).
The most common excuse cited for omitting language
sampling from assessment is the lack of time available to
complete the process in a clinic or school setting. The time
constraint may have been accurate years ago, but the pro-
cess is much more efficient today (Heilmann, 2010). Evalu-
ators are no longer bound by tape recorders, paper and
pencil transcription, or by hand-counting units for analysis.
Computer programs have helped to standardize the LSA
process and have added many analyses that advance and
assist the interpretation process (Long, 2015; MacWhinney,
2000; Miller & Iglesias, 2012). There are many compelling
reasons to use LSA, yet there are hurdles that must be
overcome to comfortably implement this powerful assess-
ment tool.
Transcription: Overcoming the Hurdles
Perhaps the biggest hurdle to overcome is transcribing
the language sample. “Why can’t this be done automatically?
If my phone or tablet computer can understand my speech,
why can’t it create a text file from a student speaking? ” It
can, with some accuracy, for well-constructed and articulated
sentences. But these speakers are typically not the students
receiving services, and the resulting transcripts would not
include many of the features clinicians are interested in
documenting such as faithful utterance boundaries, bound
morphemes, pauses, repetitions, and revisions. There are
a number of speech-to-text programs available. SALT staff
tested many of them over the years and concluded that cor-
recting the result takes as long, if not longer, than it takes
an experienced transcriber to complete the sample. SALT
transcription lab data, which are based on 550 audio sam-
ples elicited from a variety of speakers in conversation and
narration, show it takes approximately 4–6 min per minute
of audio to transcribe samples from typically developing
speakers. In contrast, it takes approximately 7–8 min to
tran- scribe each minute of an audio sample produced by
speakers being evaluated for services or receiving services.
This time difference is primarily the result of the
intelligibility of the speakers and the amount of mazing,
pausing, errors, and overlapping speech that occurs in the
sample. There are many other factors that affect
transcription time including
(a) familiarity with the transcription conventions, (b) play-
back equipment, (c) typing skills, (d) quality of the recording,
(e) length of the sample, (f) context of the sample, and (g)
the number of nonstandard features coded. The time spent
on transcription pays off with a permanent record of
language use in curriculum-relevant contexts (e.g.,
persuasion or
Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
exposition for adolescents). The transcript provides the data
to compare with typical speakers and can be used to track
progress associated with intervention.
Transcribing a language sample greatly benefits the
examiner. Listening to the sample and typing it into a text
file provides initial insights into language strengths and
weaknesses. These observations can shape the approach to
analysis, creating impressions of overall language
production under specific speaking conditions. This is time
well spent. Listening to a recorded language sample
sometime after live elicitation offers the opportunity to
attend to details possi- bly overlooked at the time of
elicitation. Transcribing the language sample offers the
experience of sharpening focus to features of the sample
that will require further analysis.
SALT staff have worked with a number of school
dis- tricts and clinics who have reduced the time of the
LSA process for clinicians by setting up their own
transcription service using speech-language pathology
assistants or other transcription staff. Typically, clinicians
send their deiden- tified audio or video samples, often via a
secure website, to the transcription staff who transcribe the
sample and return the coded text to the clinicians for
analysis. Similarly, ex- ternal transcription services have
been used to eliminate the need to train and support on-site
transcribers. Whether this service is provided in-house or
externally, having one or more dedicated transcribers
improves efficiency. On the basis of data from SALT’s
transcription services with eight school districts across the
United States, clinicians signifi- cantly increased their use
of LSA when transcription was taken off their hands. A
dedicated transcriber can reduce costs and free up the
clinicians’ time for analysis, interpreta- tion, and therapy.
For clinicians who have transcription support, the first
step in analyzing the sample is to go back and listen to the
recording while looking through the tran- script. This step
will often highlight aspects of the recorded sample that were
not noticed during elicitation. It also pro- vides opportunity
to make changes to the transcript that reflect the clinician’s
interpretation of the communication interaction versus the
perception of the transcriber who was not present or who
has little or no familiarity with the target speaker(s).
Transcribers strive for the most accurate repre- sentation of
the communicative event. It is the responsibility of the
clinician, however, to ensure that the transcript is
as valid as possible.
Since the early 1980s, SALT developers have worked
to implement consistent transcription formats (Miller, 1982).
The benefits are enormous. Measurement of the same units,
such as clear identification of what constitutes a word, rules
for identifying bound morphemes, and rules for utterance
segmentation, are prominent examples of implementing
consistency that have resulted in improved, valid, and reli-
able evaluation outcomes (Heilmann et al., 2008; Miller,
1982; Miller et al., 2011). If samples are transcribed the
same way, then analyses will be calculated on the same
units: morphemes, words, and utterances. The consistent
transcrip- tion format was essential for the development of
databases of typical speakers for specific speaking
contexts across ages and grades. Using these databases,
measures from an

100 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 47 • 99–112 •
April 2016
individual speaker could
be compared with samples
of other age- and grade-
matched speakers to
assess performance and to
document intervention
progress over time.
Computers de- mand
consistency, and as
analysis programs were
developed, consistent
transcription formats
became part of the
process.
The transcript itself
is a very effective
clinical tool.
Because it is readable, it
provides a vehicle to
highlight areas of concern
with parents, teachers,
and administrators. The
clinician is able to point
out examples of specific
areas of difficulty. The
parents understand: “Oh,
I see what you are
concerned about. He does
that at home too.” A
language sample captures
language use within real-
life contexts. The
transcript format provides
direct access to enhance
com- munication about
specific language issues.
Elicitation: The
Clinician’s Role
When eliciting
narrative samples, such as
story retells, the clinician’s
role is primarily that of an
attentive listener.
Narrative samples can be
time saving, can highlight
many academically based
linguistic features, and are
familiar for, and
interesting to, the target
speaker. The clinician
must be an active
participant, however, when
eliciting conversational
samples. This sample type
requires the examiner to
Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
establish rapport,
introduce topics, ask open-
ended questions, and
follow the other speaker’s
lead. The clinician’s role in
direct- ing a conversation
can certainly alter the
results and may cause
some clinicians to avoid
the conversational context
or to abandon LSA
altogether. Although
reticence is understood, if
there are speakers being
assessed with social
language concerns,
recording conversational
samples can be critical to
an effective assessment.
For example, students
diagnosed with autism
spectrum disorder and the
related diagnosis
of social communication
disorder, as they are
defined in the fifth edition
of the Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual of Mental
Disorders (American
Psychiatric Association,
2013), have a basic
problem with social
reciprocity. These students
tend to perform better with
narrative tasks than in
conversa- tional contexts.
Eliciting and analyzing
both types of samples to
document strengths and
weaknesses can be
essential to a thorough
assessment of spoken
language performance that
compares performance
with and without the
demands of conversation.
In this case, the clinician’s
active role in sam- ple
elicitation is necessary to
evaluate the student’s
perfor- mance of the social
demands in a
communication setting.
Using Short
Conversation
al Samples
and
Structured
Narrative
Samples
As previously
mentioned, much has
changed with the LSA
process over recent
decades. Of significant
importance is the
revelation that language
samples do not have to
con- tain at least 100
utterances or be
approximately 15 min in
length in order to
accurately capture and
assess natural lan- guage.
Short conversational
samples and structured
narratives take less time to
elicit and transcribe, and
they produce con- sistent
linguistic outcomes
(Heilmann, Nockerts, &
Miller,
2010; Thordardottir,
2015; Tilstra & McMaster,
2007). Heilmann et al.
(2008) looked at 241
narrative retell samples
produced by English
language learners in
grades K–2.
English and Spanish
samples were collected
using the word- less
picture book Frog, Where
Are You? (Mayer, 1969).
Heilmann et al. (2008)
documented that these
short samples (4 min on
average) generated
reliable estimates of
spoken language skills.
The length of the
sample should be linked to
the mea- sures one expects
to use and the type of
sample being elic- ited.
Conversations have no
particular beginning or
end.
Depending on the
speakers, a 5-min
conversational sample
typically contains 40–50
utterances which, in most
cases, is sufficient to yield
meaningful results
(Heilmann, Nockerts, &
Miller, 2010). Unlike
conversations, narratives
do have an inherent
structure, and the entire
sample should be tran-
scribed and analyzed.
Story retell narratives, for
example, require a
beginning, a middle, and
an end with specifics
regarding characters,
conflicts, and resolutions.
With these narratives,
analysis of the entire
sample takes advantage
of the speaker’s ability to
organize language, to
cohesively retell a
complete story, and to
produce as much
relevant lexicon as
possible. As students get
older, they are able to
retell more details of the
stories (Heilmann et al.,
2010; Nippold, 2014).
 Similarly, expository results. The results of ss
and persuasive sam- analyses should “make Sp
ok
ples have an inherent sense” (i.e., conform to en
structure with required observational analyses L
components (Heilmann and corrobo- rate with a an
& Malone, 2014). rereading of the gu
Depending upon a transcript). A high score ag
e
speaker’s age/grade, a on number of errors, for in
short narra- tive sample example, could be A
may indicate spoken misleading if the coder do
language deficits. It is holds the speaker to a le
sc
important to note, higher standard than is
en
however, whereas the rea- sonable, such as ts
length of a narra- tive coding a dialect speaker’s 1
language sample can be sample for Stan- dard 0
an important measure American English.
1
diagnos- tically, it is not
always a predictor of a contexts. It is important to
student’s ability to Table 1. Summary of Systematic
Analysis: reiterate the many ways Analysis of Language Transcripts
include necessary students express difficulty (SALT) reference databases:
structural elements. Comparin Grades 4–12.
with language use in
Concise stories with the g With everyday speaking
required structural Databases tasks. Clusters of variables profiles Grad A
features communicate from spoken language appear to
of Typical e in ge
elegantly, whereas longer assess- ment that be scho ran
stories emphasizing some Speakers ol ge (
characterize patterns of distinct
features and omit- ting Regardless of the 4th Narrative Story Retell 9;3–10;0 46 yea
disordered performance types of rs;
others may not hold streamlining of the LSA 5th Conversation 10;9–11;4 data 27
have been noted
Narrativein past
Story Retell deficits
10;7–11;9 base86 mo
listeners’ attention. The process over the years, research (Leadholm &
Narrative Student but can
10;9–11;4 27 nth
length interpretation of the data Miller, 1992; Selects
Miller, Story be s)
of a narrative language still remains dependent on 1991). ThisExposition
work 10;7–11;9
overlappi 86
sample can be an the clinician’s competence, 6th Narrative Story Retell 11;5–12;8 69
quantified Exposition
what clinicians ng11;5–12;8
as 69
important mea- sure, but skill, and expertise. report:
7th thatConversation
students well. Each
12;9–13;3 27
interpretation of results Clinicians have to make identified with language
Narrative Student is 12;9–13;3 27
requires clinical expertise sense of the data to Selects
disorders are not Story
alike. characteri
to evaluate the narrative recognize and resolve the Exposition 12;7–13;7 36
Miller’s
9th research,
Exposition zed by a
14;8–18;4 76
content. For any measure specific language summarizedPersuasion
most recently pattern
14;8–18;4 35
calcu- lated characteristics, behaviors, in
10thMiller etExposition
al. (2011), of 15;5–16;11
deficits 24
automatically, caution or commu- nication recognizedPersuasion
the following 15;5–16;11
resulting 24
needs to be exercised interaction styles that 11th Exposition 16;4–17;8 24
profiles of disordered
Persuasion from
16;4–17;8 24
when interpreting the emerge from the sampling performance: general analysis of
12th Exposition 17;4–18;9 29
developmental delay (low
Persuasion a series of
17;4–18;9 30
mean length of utterance, more than
M
ill
number of different words, 20
e total words, and words per different
r minute), word finding and measures,
e utterance formulation calculated
t problems (high number automatic
a of repetitions and ally from
l.
revisions at the word or a lan-
:
U phrase level), discourse guage
s deficits (trouble sample.
i maintaining topic, failure Each
n to respond to examiner deficit
g
questions), slow speaking category
L
S rate (low words per helps
A minute, high number of describe
t pauses), and fast speaking language
o rate with low semantic
A
content (high words per
s
s minute with
e circumlocution). These
Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 No. of samples
production with the goals
of pinpointing areas of
concern and guiding the
development of
intervention targets. A
detailed analysis of 260
conversational samples of
students 3–13 years of age
(Miller, 1991) found these
profiles equally
distributed across ages.
We find it surprising that
the pro- portion of
delayed development
profiles was virtually the
same for students aged
3–5, 6–8, and 9–13 years.
With improved
automation of LSA, the
opportunity to analyze
large sample sets without
human error has pro-
duced a plethora of
comparison data
(MacWhinney, 2000;
Miller & Iglesias, 2012).
Examiners no longer have
to rely on summary charts
of language development
(Miller, 1982), though they
can still be useful. SALT
includes databases of
typical speakers in various
speaking conditions:
conversation, narration,
exposition, and persuasion
for speakers 3–18 years of
age. These databases
contain thousands of
samples of English and
Spanish monolingual and
bilingual speakers.
They provide norm-
referenced data to
highlight the strengths and
weaknesses of individual
speakers (Heilmann,
Miller, & Nockerts, 2010).
Analysis using SALT
allows the user to access
these databases to
compare the performance
of an individual student
with age- or grade-
matched peers under the
same speaking
conditions.
Table 1 lists the
SALT reference databases
available for English-
fluent students in fourth
Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
through 12th grade. Ages
for each data set provide
a snapshot of grade and
age relationship. Note
that there are
conversational samples
for fifth and seventh
graders, narrative
samples where the
student selects the story
(Narrative SSS) for fifth
and seventh graders,
narrative story retell
samples for fourth to sixth
graders, expository
samples (specifically how
to play a game or sport)
for fifth to 12th graders,
and persuasive samples
for ninth to 12th graders.
These databases provide
performance standards
across advancing grades
and lan- guage sample
demands.
Using LSA with
reference databases can
help docu- ment the
outcomes of practice. The
databases provide access
to several powerful tools
in the quest to understand
an indi- vidual speaker’s
language production. They
provide norm- referenced
data on multiple measures
of language production
with which to compare a
student’s performance.
They can substantiate the
validity of the sampling
protocol for reveal- ing
specific deficits and
allow clinicians to
describe and validate how
specific linguistic contexts
affect students’ spoken
communication skills.
Case Studies
The following case
studies illustrate how
databases of typically
developing speakers
document individual
perfor- mance. The first
case study examines an
expository sam- ple from
a ninth grader. The
second case study
examines a narrative
102 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 47 • 99–112 •
April 2016
the SALT transcription
conventions (SALT
Software, 2015b).
Refer to Figure 1 for a
copy of her transcript.
From listening to the
sample, several areas of
concern were identified by
the clinician. The sample
seemed very short. Teresa
paused a lot, and her
explanation of how to
play soccer was not very
detailed. Analysis in SALT
allowed the clinician to
select a group of grade-
matched language sam-
ples from the SALT
expository database
(SALT Software, 2015a).
sample from a sixth
grader.
Case Study 1: Teresa
Consider the
following scenario.
Teresa is 15 years old and
is in the ninth grade. As
part of a language assess-
ment, Teresa was asked to
explain how to play her
favorite game or sport, an
elicitation task based on
Nippold’s (2014) research.
The specific protocol
used, which includes a
planning sheet listing eight
expository components
(object, preparations,
start, course of play,
rules, scoring, dura- tion,
and strategies) can be
found on the SALT
website (SALT Software,
2015a). Teresa chose
soccer and was given a
few minutes to fill out the
planning sheet. She was
directed to explain how
to play soccer while
having her completed
planning sheet available
for reference. The lan-
guage sample was
recorded and later
transcribed following
Once the comparison set of
samples was identified,
SALT produced a variety
of reports showing how
Teresa’s language sample
compares with her peers.
The comparison values are
presented as means,
ranges, and standard
devia- tion values for each
score. Values of more
than 1 SD above or below
the database values are
highlighted.
Figure 2 compares
the length of Teresa’s
sample with samples from
41 typically developing
ninth graders selected
from the SALT expository
 database. Results
confirm Teresa produced
a shorter expository
sample, using only 23
utterances and 197 words,
compared with her peers
who used an average of 54
utterances and 709
words. This is
approximately 2 SD
below the database
mean.
The next analysis
(see Figure 3) looks at
specific lan- guage
measures on the basis of
samples of the same
length. Teresa’s sample
contained 179 number of
total words (NTW)
excluding words in
mazes and in
unintelligible or
incomplete utterances. To
generate the report in
Figure 3, only the first 179
NTW of the database
samples are included for
the comparison. Cutting
the database samples to
the same number of words
as Teresa’s sample ensures
valid comparison of
measures, such as number
of different words (NDW),
number of pauses, and
number of errors, which
are directly affected by the
length of the transcript.
Notice that Teresa’s mean
length of utterance
(MLU) was 2 SD below
the database mean.
NDW, a measure of
vocabulary diversity, was
similar to that of her
peers. The observa- tion
that her transcript
contained a high number
of pauses was confirmed,
and, as a consequence, her
speaking rate, measured
in words per minute, was
slow.
Given her low MLU
value, it is suspected
Teresa may have a
complex syntax deficit. To
verify, her transcript was
coded for the
Subordination Index (SI;
Loban, 1976; SALT
Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
Software, 2015c). The SI
is an assessment applied
to an existing transcript
that produces a ratio of the
total number of clauses to
the total number of
communication units.
Using the software
tools to expedite the
analysis, each utterance
was assigned a code
indicating the number
of clauses produced in
the utterance. To
illustrate, Figure 4
contains several
utterances, coded for
SI, taken from
Teresa’s expository
sample.
All of the SALT
database samples have
been coded for SI. Figure
5 compares Teresa’s SI
scores with those of other
ninth graders in the
comparison set. Notice
that none of Teresa’s
utterances contained more
than two clauses,
resulting in a composite
score that is 1.2 SD
below that of her peers.
Teresa’s scores confirm a
suspicion regarding a
deficit with complex
syntax. This leaves her at
a sub- stantial
disadvantage in
explaining a complex
game like soccer.
The Expository
Scoring Scheme (ESS;
Heilmann & Malone,
2014; SALT Software,
2015d) was also
applied to the
transcript to assess the
content, organization,
and structure of
Teresa’s sample. The
ESS provides an overall
measure of a speaker’s
skill in explaining how
to play a
favorite game or sport.
The ESS is scored for the
following 10 categories
using a scale of 1
(minimal ) to 5 (
proficient): preparations,
object of contest, start of
play, course of play,
scoring, rules, strategy,
duration, terminology,
and cohe- sion. The
clinician or transcriber
reads the expository sam-
ple and inserts the scores
on a template in the
transcript.
All the expository
samples in the SALT
database have been scored
for ESS. Figure 6
compares Teresa’s scores
with those of her grade-
matched peers. ESS
analysis documents
Teresa’s difficulties with
expository organization
and struc- ture.
Knowledge of complex
syntax and the ability
explain how to play a
game or sport could be
related skills. Without the
ability to produce
complex syntactic
structures, it is im-
possible to put together
multiple propositions,
expressing complex
relationships. Although
low ESS scores sometimes
reflect this type of deficit,
further examination of the
sample reveals that the
ESS scores expose an
underlying problem with
the structure of
explaining how to play a
favorite game or sport.
The SALT
expository database
offers direct com-
parison data to
document Teresa’s
expository language,
confirming initial
concerns from eliciting
and listening to the
sample and from reading
the transcript. Explaining
how to do something is
part of the Common Core
State Stan- dards (CCSS;
CCSS Initiative, 2015) for
spoken as well
as written language. This
example highlights
Teresa’s per- formance on
an exposition task. As a
follow-up assessment, her
written language skills
could be examined to
address her understanding
of explanation as a genre
and focus on the
reciprocity between
spoken and written
language chal- lenges
posed by the curriculum.
Case Study 2: Patrick
This case study
examines the story
retelling skills of a sixth
grader, providing an
opportunity to explore the
SALT narrative story retell
database (SALT Software,
2015e) to document
narrative skills.
Patrick is almost 12
years old and is in the
sixth grade. As part of an
assessment, the clinician
recorded Patrick re-
telling the story Doctor
De Soto (Steig, 1982).
From listen- ing to the
language sample
recording while reading
the transcript, the
examiner noticed that
Patrick made several word
errors and omissions not
expected of a student his
age. In addition, he
frequently repeated and
revised utter- ance
 segments. Figure 7
contains an excerpt from
Patrick’s narrative.
Figure 8
compares the length of
Patrick’s sample with 69
typically developing sixth
graders selected from the
SALT narrative story
retell database. The
length of his sam- ple is
comparable with that of
his peers.
The next analysis
(see Figure 9) looks at
specific lan- guage
measures that are most
valid when compared
with

M
ill
e
r
e
t
a
l.
:
U
s
i
n
g
L
S
A
t
o
A
s
s
e
s
s
S
p
o
k
e
n
L
a
n
g
u
a
g
e
i
n
A
d
o
l
e
s
c
e
n
t
s
1
0
3

Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
Figure 1. Case study 1–Expository transcript in Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) format.

104 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 47 • 99–112 • April 2016
 Figure 2. Case study 1–Taken from Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) Transcript Length and Intelligibility report.

Figure 3. Case study 1–Taken from Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) Standard Measures report.

Miller et al.: Using LSA to Assess Spoken Language in Adolescents 105

Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Figure 4. Case study 1–Utterances coded for Subordination Index.

samples of the same length. Patrick’s sample contains

report also includes the utterances, allowing the examiner
513 NTW. To generate this report, the database samples
to review the context of each omission and coded error.
were cut at 513 NTW, creating a set of length-matched
It is interesting that he made each omission and error only
samples for comparison.
once. Although one can gain some preliminary insight by
Figure 9 shows that Patrick’s MLU was more than reviewing the utterances in this report, it may be more pro-
1 SD below the database mean, though his NDW, a mea- ductive to review the transcript again as a way of processing
sure of vocabulary diversity, was higher than his peers. the context for the omissions and errors.
His false starts, repetitions, and revisions (mazes) were very
Patrick’s language sample revealed a number of
high, with more than 20% of his words in mazes. His omis-
strengths as well as deficits. His vocabulary use was above
sions and errors were very frequent for his age. These
that of his peers for this task, though his average utterance
analyses reveal a short average utterance length, perhaps
length was below. Follow-up analyses of complex syntax
due to a complex syntax deficit.
revealed an SI composite score at the low end of the typical
To explore Patrick’s use of complex syntax, SI coding group. His very frequent mazes indicate he may have been
(SALT Software, 2015c) was applied to each utterance in struggling with utterance formulation, perhaps related to
his transcript. Figure 10 reveals how his scores compared facility with complex sentence forms.
with his grade-matched peers. His SI composite score was
Although this case study illustrates how Patrick per-
slightly lower than the database samples and may warrant
formed on a text-based narrative task, it may be prudent
further investigation of the sample to explore the possibility
to assess his language skills using the content of the class-
of a deficit in complex syntax.
room curriculum. The results can offer detailed information
To learn more about the content in the increased to share with classroom teachers and provide a platform
number of mazes, the Maze Summary report (see Figure 11) from which to build an intervention plan.
was run. This report revealed that Patrick’s mazes are pre-
dominantly at the phrase level, indicating difficulties with
utterance formulation. Phrase-level mazes can point to Written Language
problems with attempting to incorporate more propositions
The correlation between spoken language and written
into utterances without the necessary syntactic ability.
language is well established (Gillam & Johnston, 1992;
The Omissions and Error Codes report in Figure 12
Scott & Windsor, 2000). Hall-Mills and Apel (2015) inves-
lists four words and one bound morpheme that Patrick
tigated written language development in elementary grades
omitted as well as nine word-level errors he produced. The
across narrative and expository genres. They argue that

Figure 5. Case study 1–Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) Subordination Index report.

106 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 47 • 99–112 • April 2016
Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Figure 6. Case study 1–Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) Expository Scoring Scheme report.

speech-language pathologists are well trained to work with

developing rules for dealing with issues specific to written
teachers on language-based analyses, particularly for those
samples (e.g., misspellings, capitalization, and incorrect or
students receiving speech and language services. Funda-
missing punctuation). SALT has been used by written lan-
mental to their study is the need for more research on writ-
guage researchers to facilitate analyses (Hall-Mills & Apel,
ten language skill development. Written language analysis
2015; N. W. Nelson, 2014a, 2014b). It can expedite written
has used similar methods as spoken LSA without having
language analysis, but the interpretation of the results rela-
to transcribe the acoustic signal into standard orthography. tive to typical students is left to curriculum standards.
Both share similar issues for consistency: identifying
Price and Jackson (2015) detail the analysis of written
words, morphemes, and utterance segmentation as well as
language using SALT as the methodology to work through

Figure 7. Case study 2–Excerpt of story retell transcript in Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) format.

Miller et al.: Using LSA to Assess Spoken Language in Adolescents 107

Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Figure 8. Case study 2–Taken from Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) Transcript Length and Intelligibility report.

Figure 9. Case study 2–Taken from Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) Standard Measures report.

108 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 47 • 99–112 • April 2016

Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Figure 10. Case study 2–Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) Subordination Index report.
multiple levels of analysis. They provide an overview of
analysis options and explain why the analysis of written
language is important for developing a complete under-
standing of the challenges students face within the curricu-
lum. The authors are not aware of any available written
language databases but believe they would be very useful in
documenting academic progress. These could be organized
around the CCSS (CCSS Initiative, 2015) by grade and
genre, with students being asked to produce written narra-
tives and expository work across subjects (e.g., history, so-
cial studies, and the sciences). Written language databases
would allow teachers and speech-language pathologists to
match performance with expectations for students with
typical literacy skills and those with language challenges.
Disciplinary Literacy
The ability to read, write, listen, speak, and think crit-
ically begins to develop early and becomes increasingly
Figure 11. Case study 2–Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) Maze Summary report.
Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
important as students pursue specialized fields of study in
high school and beyond. The CCSS for literacy in science,
social studies, history, and the technical subjects guide edu-
cators to help students meet the literacy challenges within
each particular field of study. This national effort is referred
to as disciplinary literacy (Wisconsin Department of Public
Instruction, 2015). In a recent e-mail communication,
M. Nippold suggested,
Once a language sample has been elicited,
transcribed, and analyzed using SALT normative
data, and the results indicate significant deficits in
spoken language production, it is important to use
this information
to improve the student’s language skills in [other] real
world contexts, such as the classroom. For a middle
school student, short samples of spoken language
could be taken in the classroom to plan individualized
intervention and to monitor the student’s progress
over time. Appropriate contexts might include re-
cording the student while giving an oral report in
 Figure 10. Case study 2–Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) Subordination Index report.

Miller et al.: Using LSA to Assess Spoken Language in Adolescents 109

Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 Figure 12. Case study 2–Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) Omissions and Error Codes report.

history class (expository discourse); retelling a folk
tale in English class (narrative discourse); debating a
classmate in civics class ( persuasive discourse); or chat-
ting with a peer during lunch break (conversational
discourse). (personal communication as part of the
review process, September 22, 2015).
Although these sampling contexts are beyond the
scope of the current SALT databases, the software can be
used to examine literacy across the curriculum. Samples of
spoken or written language can be examined for vocabulary
content by creating lists of words reflecting the curriculum
content. SALT can count the frequency of use for each
word and pull up the utterances containing them. These
data provide access to the student’s vocabulary in explaining
the subject content. Advanced syntax and text-level analy-
ses can be evaluated in a similar manner by coding features
relevant to the genre. Although no database comparisons
can be made, the results support evidence-based practice.
Users can code any language feature of interest at the word,
morpheme, utterance, or text level. Using SALT’s advanced

110 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 47 • 99–112 • April 2016

Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
 search and reporting features, these codes can be summa- analyzed using similar methods. However, at this time
rized for interpretation. Utterances containing coded SALT does not include reference databases for comparison.
features can be examined, providing context for further Middle and high school students must meet
analyses. challenges in the curriculum, some of which stem from
the CCSS, which mentions the need for students to
integrate skills in speaking, listening, reading, and writing
Current Research in specific con- tent areas. These curricular challenges
require clinicians to find ways to elucidate their specific
SALT Software’s newest project is the creation of a difficulties. Spoken and written language samples can
reference database of persuasive language samples. This capture these expectations for student learning (Miller,
database project targets high school students in ninth to Andriacchi, & Nockerts, 2013; SALT Software, 2015f).
12th grades. The choice of a persuasive task emanated from The case studies demonstrate how databases of typi-
the CCSS in which students are expected to be competent cally developing speakers can be used to confirm clinical
in spoken and written argumentation across the curriculum. impressions and direct follow-up with additional analyses
The persuasion protocol used to elicit the samples includes to more precisely document individual challenges. The
providing the student with a list of suggested topics, such databases capture typical language use in the contexts that
as convincing school officials to start school later in the these students meet every day in the classroom. Similar
day, or persuading government officials to increase the min- databases could be constructed for spoken and written liter-
imum wage. The protocol also includes a planning sheet acy contexts to document expectations for vocabulary, syn-
to provide the student with a scaffold for components that tax, and text-level organizational skills across subjects and
are expected in this task. Preliminary analyses of 113 stu- grades. Computer solutions provide the tools to explore lan-
dents from Wisconsin, grades 9–12, compared their per- guage use in detail. The challenge is to find ways to use
formance in exposition and persuasion. Students produced these powerful tools within the demands of clinical
shorter samples with more complex syntax in persuasion practice.
than exposition (see Table 2). Additional samples are being
collected in California and Australia, which will then be
analyzed in detail to determine whether they can be com-
bined with the Wisconsin samples.
References
American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and
statistical manual of mental disorders (5th ed.). Washington,
Summary DC: Author.
LSA is a versatile tool to assess language production Bloom, L., & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development and
in everyday speaking situations, providing evidence to vali- lan- guage disorders. New York, NY: Wiley.
Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge,
date clinical practice. A language sample is easily
MA: Harvard University Press.
understood by parents, teachers, administrators, and other Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative. (2015). English
professionals, offering the opportunity to explain language arts standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.
assessment outcomes and intervention decisions. Using org/ELA-Literacy/
databases of samples from typically developing students Donaldson, M. (1986). Children’s explanations: A psycholinguistic
provides detailed maps of study. Cambridge, United Kingdom: Cambridge University
age- and grade-level performance expectations. These data Press.
will confirm that typical students’ language production Gillam, R., & Johnston, J. (1992). Spoken and written language
relationships in language/learning-impaired and normally
is not perfect and includes omissions, repetitions, and revi-
achieving school-age children. Journal of Speech and Hearing
sions as well as word choice and grammatical errors. Pro- Research, 35, 1303–1315.
duction errors of typical students, however, occur far less Hall-Mills, S., & Apel, K. (2015). Linguistic feature development
frequently or in different combinations than in students across grades and genre in elementary writing. Language,
requiring therapy. Samples of written language can be Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 46, 242–255.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the
Table 2. Comparison of sample length (NTW) and sentence complexity (SI) by
every- day experiences of young American children. Baltimore,
grade: Expository and persuasive samples. MD: Brookes.
Heilmann, J. (2010). Myths and realities of language sample analy-
sis. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 17, 4–8.
Grade in No. of
Heilmann, J., & Malone, T. (2014). The rules of the game: Proper-
school samples Protocol Mean NTW Mean SI
ties of a database of expository language samples. Language,
9th 35 Persuasion 457.03 2.04 Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45, 277–290.
35 Exposition 829.26 1.69 Heilmann, J., Miller, J., Iglesias, A., Fabiano-Smith, L., Nockerts, A.,
10th 24 Persuasion 584.58 2.02 & Digney Andriacchi, K. (2008). Narrative transcription accuracy
24 Exposition 789.13 1.66 and reliability in two languages. Topics in Language Disorders,
11th 23 Persuasion 534.09 2.19 28, 178–188.
23 Exposition 874.52 1.70
Heilmann, J., Miller, J., & Nockerts, A. (2010). Using language
12th 29 Persuasion 535.66 2.15
sample databases. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
29 Exposition 896.93 1.69
in Schools, 41, 84–95.

Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016

Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx

Heilmann, J., Nockerts, A., &
Leadholm, B., & Miller, J.
Miller, J. (2010).
Language sam- pling:
Does the length of the
transcript matter?
Language, Speech, and
Hearing Services in
Loban, W. (1976). Language
Schools, 41, 393–404.
Heilmann, J., & Westerveld,
M. (2013). Bilingual
language sample
analysis: Considerations
Long, S. (2015). Computerized
and technological
Profiling [Computer
advances. Journal of
software].
Clinical Practice in
Speech-Language
Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
M MacWhinney, B. (2000). The Ehren, & G. Wallach
ill CHILDES project: Tools (Eds.), Handbook of
e for analyz- ing talk (3rd language and literacy
r ed.). Mahwah, NJ: development and disorders
e Erlbaum. (2nd ed., pp. 524–543).
t Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where New York, NY: Guilford.
a are you? New York, NY: Dial Nelson, N. W. (2014b).
l. Press. Integrating language
: Miller, J. (1982). Assessing assessment, instruc- tion,
U language production in and intervention in an
s children. Baltimore, MD: inclusive writing lab
i University Park Press. approach. In B. Arfé, J.
n
Miller, J. (1991). Quantifying Dockrell, & V.
g
L
productive language Berninger (Eds.),
S disorders. In Writing devel-
A J. Miller (Ed.), Research opment in children with
on child language hearing loss, dyslexia, or
t disorders: A decade of oral language problems (pp.
o progress (pp. 211–231). 273–300). New York, NY:
A Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Oxford University Press.
s Miller, J., Andriacchi, K., & Nippold, M. (2014). Language
s Nockerts, A. (Eds.) sampling with adolescents:
e (2011). Assessing Im- plications for
s language production intervention (2nd ed.). San
s using SALT software: A Diego, CA: Plural
S clinician’s guide to
p Publishing.
language sample analysis.
o
Middleton, WI: SALT
k
e
Software LLC.
n Miller, J., Andriacchi, K., &
L Nockerts, A. (2013, July
a 1). Analysis assistance:
n SLPs turn to language
g sample analysis software
u to document progress on
a the Common Core State
g Standards. Advance
e Healthcare Network for
i Speech and Hearing.
n
Retrieved from
A
d
http://speech-language-
o pathology-
l audiology.advanceweb.
e com/Features/Articles/A
s nalysis-Assistance.aspx
c Miller, J., Heilmann, J.,
e Nockerts, A., Iglesias, A.,
n Fabiano, L., & Francis, D.
t (2006). Oral language and
s reading in bilingual chil-
1 dren. Learning Disabilities
1 Research & Practice, 21,
30–43.
1
Miller, J., & Iglesias, A.
Pathology, 15, 87–93.
(2012). Systematic
Analysis of Language
(1992). Language sample
Transcripts (SALT)
analysis: The Wisconsin
[Computer software].
guide. Madison, WI:
Middleton, WI: SALT
Wisconsin Department
Software LLC.
of Public Instruction.
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure
and strategy in learning to
development: Kindergarten
talk.
through grade twelve. Monographs of the Society
Urbana, IL: National
for Research in Child
Council of Teachers.
Development, 38, 1–135.
Nelson, N. W. (2014a).
Classroom-based writing
assessment. In
Milwaukee, WI: Marquette
A. Stone, E. Silliman, B.
University.

Paul, R. (2012). Language
disorders from infancy
through adoles- cence (4th
ed.). St. Louis, MO:
Elsevier Mosby.
Piaget, J. (1926).
Language and thought
of the child. The
Hague: Mouton.
Price, J., & Jackson, S.
(2015). Procedures for
obtaining and ana-
lyzing writing samples of
school-age children and
adolescents. Language,
Speech, and Hearing
Services in Schools, 46,
277–293.
Rojas, R., & Iglesias, A.
(2010). Using language
sampling to mea- sure
language growth.
Perspectives on
Language Learning and
Education, 17, 24–31.
Roskos, K., Tabors, P., &
Lenhart, L. (2009).
Oral language and
early literacy in
preschool: Talking,
reading, and writing
(2nd ed.). Newark,
DE: International
Reading Association.
SALT Software. (2015a).
SALT expository
database. Retrieved
from
http://saltsoftware.com/m
edia/wysiwyg/reference_d
atabase/
ExpoRDBDoc.pdf
SALT Software. (2015b).
Summary of SALT
transcription conven-
tions. Retrieved from
http://saltsoftware.com/m
edia/wysiwyg/
tranaids/TranConvSum
mary.pdf
SALT Software. (2015c).
Subordination Index.
Retrieved from
http://saltsoftware.com/me
dia/wysiwyg/codeaids/SI_S
coring_ Guide.pdf
SALT Software. (2015d).
Expository Scoring Scheme
(ESS) guide.
Retrieved from
http://saltsoftware.
com/media/wysiwy
g/
codeaids/ESS_Sc
oring_Guide.pdf
SALT Software. (2015e).
SALT narrative story
Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a New York University User on 09/04/2016
Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx
retell reference da-
tabase. Retrieved from
http://saltsoftware.com/m
edia/wysiwyg/
reference_database/Nar
StoryRetellRDBDoc.pdf
SALT Software. (2015f).
Using SALT to access
the Common Core. State
standards for speaking
and listening: Grades K–
12. Retrieved from
http://saltsoftware.com/m
112 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 47 • 99–112 •
April 2016
edia/wysiwyg/CCSS_
grid.pdf
Scott, C., & Windsor, J.
(2000). General language
performance measures in
spoken and written
narrative and expository
discourse of school-age
children with language
learning dis- abilities.
Journal of Speech,
Language, and Hearing
Research, 43, 324–339.
Slobin, D. (Ed.). (1985). The
cross-linguistic study of
language acquisition.
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Steig, W. (1982). Doctor De
Soto. New York, NY:
Farrar, Straus, &
Giroux.
Thordardottir, E. (2015,
June). French
language samples:
Does length matter?
Poster session
presented at the
meeting of the
Symposium on
Research in Child
Language Disorders,
Madison, WI.
Tilstra, J., & McMaster, K.
(2007). Productivity,
fluency, and
grammaticality
measures from
narratives: Potential
indicators of language
proficiency?
Communication
Disorders Quarterly, 29,
43–53.
Weir, R. (1962). Language in
the crib. The Hague: Mouton.
Wisconsin Department of
Public Instruction.
(2015). CCSS for
literacy in all subjects.
Retrieved from
http://dpi.wi.gov/sites/
default/files/imce/sta
ndards/pdf/las-
stds.pdf