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
a
University of Wisconsin–Madison
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
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 47 • 99–112 • April 2016 • Copyright © 2016 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
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.
99
 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
100 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
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
 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 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 Conversational 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,
Miller et al.: Using LSA to Assess Spoken Language in Adolescents
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
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 and persuasive sam-
ples have an inherent structure with required components
(Heilmann & Malone, 2014).
Depending upon a speaker’s age/grade, a short narra-
tive sample may indicate spoken language deficits. It is
important to note, however, whereas the length of a narra-
tive language sample can be an important measure diagnos-
tically, it is not always a predictor of a student’s ability to
include necessary structural elements. Concise stories with
the required structural features communicate elegantly,
whereas longer stories emphasizing some features and omit-
ting others may not hold listeners’ attention. The length
of a narrative language sample can be an important mea-
sure, but interpretation of results requires clinical expertise
to evaluate the narrative content. For any measure calcu-
lated automatically, caution needs to be exercised when
interpreting the results. The results of analyses should “make
sense” (i.e., conform to observational analyses and corrobo-
rate with a rereading of the transcript). A high score on
number of errors, for example, could be misleading if the
coder holds the speaker to a higher standard than is rea-
sonable, such as coding a dialect speaker’s sample for Stan-
dard American English.
Analysis: Comparing With Databases
of Typical Speakers
Regardless of the streamlining of the LSA process over
the years, interpretation of the data still remains dependent
on the clinician’s competence, skill, and expertise. Clinicians
have to make sense of the data to recognize and resolve
the specific language characteristics, behaviors, or commu-
nication interaction styles that emerge from the sampling
101
 Table 1. Summary of Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts
contexts. It is important to reiterate the many ways students
(SALT) reference databases: Grades 4–12.
express difficulty with language use in everyday speaking
tasks. Clusters of variables from spoken language assess- Grade in Age range No. of
ment that characterize patterns of disordered performance school SALT database ( years;months) samples
have been noted in past research (Leadholm & Miller,
1992; Miller, 1991). This work quantified what clinicians 4th Narrative Story Retell 9;3–10;0 46
report: that students identified with language disorders are 5th Conversation 10;9–11;4 27
Narrative Story Retell 10;7–11;9 86
not alike. Miller’s research, summarized most recently in Narrative Student 10;9–11;4 27
Miller et al. (2011), recognized the following profiles of Selects Story
disordered performance: general developmental delay (low Exposition 10;7–11;9 86
mean length of utterance, number of different words, total 6th Narrative Story Retell 11;5–12;8 69
Exposition 11;5–12;8 69
words, and words per minute), word finding and utterance 7th Conversation 12;9–13;3 27
formulation problems (high number of repetitions and Narrative Student 12;9–13;3 27
revisions at the word or phrase level), discourse deficits Selects Story
(trouble maintaining topic, failure to respond to examiner Exposition 12;7–13;7 36
9th Exposition 14;8–18;4 76
questions), slow speaking rate (low words per minute, high Persuasion 14;8–18;4 35
number of pauses), and fast speaking rate with low semantic 10th Exposition 15;5–16;11 24
content (high words per minute with circumlocution). These Persuasion 15;5–16;11 24
profiles appear to be distinct types of deficits but can be 11th Exposition 16;4–17;8 24
Persuasion 16;4–17;8 24
overlapping as well. Each is characterized by a pattern 12th Exposition 17;4–18;9 29
of deficits resulting from analysis of a series of more than Persuasion 17;4–18;9 30
20 different measures, calculated automatically from a lan-
guage sample. Each deficit category helps describe language
production with the goals of pinpointing areas of concern
Using LSA with reference databases can help docu-
and guiding the development of intervention targets. A
ment the outcomes of practice. The databases provide access
detailed analysis of 260 conversational samples of students
to several powerful tools in the quest to understand an indi-
3–13 years of age (Miller, 1991) found these profiles equally
vidual speaker’s language production. They provide norm-
distributed across ages. We find it surprising that the pro-
referenced data on multiple measures of language production
portion of delayed development profiles was virtually the
with which to compare a student’s performance. They can
same for students aged 3–5, 6–8, and 9–13 years.
substantiate the validity of the sampling protocol for reveal-
With improved automation of LSA, the opportunity
ing specific deficits and allow clinicians to describe and
to analyze large sample sets without human error has pro-
validate how specific linguistic contexts affect students’ spoken
duced a plethora of comparison data (MacWhinney, 2000;
communication skills.
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, Case Studies
narration, exposition, and persuasion for speakers 3–18 years The following case studies illustrate how databases of
of age. These databases contain thousands of samples of typically developing speakers document individual perfor-
English and Spanish monolingual and bilingual speakers. mance. The first case study examines an expository sam-
They provide norm-referenced data to highlight the strengths ple from a ninth grader. The second case study examines a
and weaknesses of individual speakers (Heilmann, Miller, & narrative sample from a sixth grader.
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 Case Study 1: Teresa
the same speaking conditions. Consider the following scenario. Teresa is 15 years
Table 1 lists the SALT reference databases available old and is in the ninth grade. As part of a language assess-
for English-fluent students in fourth through 12th grade. ment, Teresa was asked to explain how to play her favorite
Ages for each data set provide a snapshot of grade and age game or sport, an elicitation task based on Nippold’s (2014)
relationship. Note that there are conversational samples research. The specific protocol used, which includes a
for fifth and seventh graders, narrative samples where the planning sheet listing eight expository components (object,
student selects the story (Narrative SSS) for fifth and preparations, start, course of play, rules, scoring, dura-
seventh graders, narrative story retell samples for fourth to tion, and strategies) can be found on the SALT website
sixth graders, expository samples (specifically how to play (SALT Software, 2015a). Teresa chose soccer and was
a game or sport) for fifth to 12th graders, and persuasive given a few minutes to fill out the planning sheet. She was
samples for ninth to 12th graders. These databases provide directed to explain how to play soccer while having her
performance standards across advancing grades and lan- completed planning sheet available for reference. The lan-
guage sample demands. guage sample was recorded and later transcribed following

102 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
 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). 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
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.
Miller et al.: Using LSA to Assess Spoken Language in Adolescents
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
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
103
 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

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 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
513 NTW. To generate this report, the database samples
were cut at 513 NTW, creating a set of length-matched
samples for comparison.
Figure 9 shows that Patrick’s MLU was more than
1 SD below the database mean, though his NDW, a mea-
sure of vocabulary diversity, was higher than his peers.
His false starts, repetitions, and revisions (mazes) were very
high, with more than 20% of his words in mazes. His omis-
sions and errors were very frequent for his age. These
analyses reveal a short average utterance length, perhaps
due to a complex syntax deficit.
To explore Patrick’s use of complex syntax, SI coding
(SALT Software, 2015c) was applied to each utterance in
his transcript. Figure 10 reveals how his scores compared
with his grade-matched peers. His SI composite score was
slightly lower than the database samples and may warrant
further investigation of the sample to explore the possibility
of a deficit in complex syntax.
To learn more about the content in the increased
number of mazes, the Maze Summary report (see Figure 11)
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
problems with attempting to incorporate more propositions
into utterances without the necessary syntactic ability.
The Omissions and Error Codes report in Figure 12
lists four words and one bound morpheme that Patrick
omitted as well as nine word-level errors he produced. The
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
report also includes the utterances, allowing the examiner
to review the context of each omission and coded error.
It is interesting that he made each omission and error only
once. Although one can gain some preliminary insight by
reviewing the utterances in this report, it may be more pro-
ductive to review the transcript again as a way of processing
the context for the omissions and errors.
Patrick’s language sample revealed a number of
strengths as well as deficits. His vocabulary use was above
that of his peers for this task, though his average utterance
length was below. Follow-up analyses of complex syntax
revealed an SI composite score at the low end of the typical
group. His very frequent mazes indicate he may have been
struggling with utterance formulation, perhaps related to
facility with complex sentence forms.
Although this case study illustrates how Patrick per-
formed on a text-based narrative task, it may be prudent
to assess his language skills using the content of the class-
room curriculum. The results can offer detailed information
to share with classroom teachers and provide a platform
from which to build an intervention plan.
Written Language
The correlation between spoken language and written
language is well established (Gillam & Johnston, 1992;
Scott & Windsor, 2000). Hall-Mills and Apel (2015) inves-
tigated written language development in elementary grades
across narrative and expository genres. They argue that
 Figure 6. Case study 1–Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) Expository Scoring Scheme report.

speech-language pathologists are well trained to work with
teachers on language-based analyses, particularly for those
students receiving speech and language services. Funda-
mental to their study is the need for more research on writ-
ten language skill development. Written language analysis
has used similar methods as spoken LSA without having
to transcribe the acoustic signal into standard orthography.
Both share similar issues for consistency: identifying
words, morphemes, and utterance segmentation as well as
developing rules for dealing with issues specific to written
samples (e.g., misspellings, capitalization, and incorrect or
missing punctuation). SALT has been used by written lan-
guage researchers to facilitate analyses (Hall-Mills & Apel,
2015; N. W. Nelson, 2014a, 2014b). It can expedite written
language analysis, but the interpretation of the results rela-
tive to typical students is left to curriculum standards.
Price and Jackson (2015) detail the analysis of written
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
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 11. Case study 2–Systematic Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT) Maze Summary 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 features SALT does not include reference databases for comparison.
can be examined, providing context for further analyses. Middle and high school students must meet challenges
in the curriculum, some of which stem from the CCSS,
which mentions the need for students to integrate skills in
Current Research speaking, listening, reading, and writing in specific con-
tent areas. These curricular challenges require clinicians to
SALT Software’s newest project is the creation of a find ways to elucidate their specific difficulties. Spoken and
reference database of persuasive language samples. This written language samples can capture these expectations
database project targets high school students in ninth to for student learning (Miller, Andriacchi, & Nockerts, 2013;
12th grades. The choice of a persuasive task emanated from SALT Software, 2015f ).
the CCSS in which students are expected to be competent The case studies demonstrate how databases of typi-
in spoken and written argumentation across the curriculum. cally developing speakers can be used to confirm clinical
The persuasion protocol used to elicit the samples includes impressions and direct follow-up with additional analyses
providing the student with a list of suggested topics, such to more precisely document individual challenges. The
as convincing school officials to start school later in the databases capture typical language use in the contexts that
day, or persuading government officials to increase the min- these students meet every day in the classroom. Similar
imum wage. The protocol also includes a planning sheet databases could be constructed for spoken and written liter-
to provide the student with a scaffold for components that acy contexts to document expectations for vocabulary, syn-
are expected in this task. Preliminary analyses of 113 stu- tax, and text-level organizational skills across subjects and
dents from Wisconsin, grades 9–12, compared their per- grades. Computer solutions provide the tools to explore lan-
formance in exposition and persuasion. Students produced guage use in detail. The challenge is to find ways to use these
shorter samples with more complex syntax in persuasion powerful tools within the demands of clinical 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, DC: Author.
Summary Bloom, L., & Lahey, M. (1978). Language development and lan-
LSA is a versatile tool to assess language production guage disorders. New York, NY: Wiley.
in everyday speaking situations, providing evidence to vali- Brown, R. (1973). A first language: The early stages. Cambridge,
date clinical practice. A language sample is easily understood MA: Harvard University Press.
Common Core State Standards (CCSS) Initiative. (2015). English
by parents, teachers, administrators, and other professionals,
language arts standards. Retrieved from http://www.corestandards.
offering the opportunity to explain assessment outcomes org/ELA-Literacy/
and intervention decisions. Using databases of samples from Donaldson, M. (1986). Children’s explanations: A psycholinguistic
typically developing students 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
is not perfect and includes omissions, repetitions, and revi- relationships in language/learning-impaired and normally
sions as well as word choice and grammatical errors. Pro- achieving school-age children. Journal of Speech and Hearing
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, Speech,
requiring therapy. Samples of written language can be and Hearing Services in Schools, 46, 242–255.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the every-
Table 2. Comparison of sample length (NTW) and sentence day experiences of young American children. Baltimore, MD:
complexity (SI) by grade: Expository and persuasive samples. Brookes.
Heilmann, J. (2010). Myths and realities of language sample analy-
Grade in No. of sis. Perspectives on Language Learning and Education, 17, 4–8.
school samples Protocol Mean NTW Mean SI Heilmann, J., & Malone, T. (2014). The rules of the game: Proper-
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
29 Exposition 896.93 1.69 sample databases. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in
Schools, 41, 84–95.

Miller et al.: Using LSA to Assess Spoken Language in Adolescents 111

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., & Miller, J. (2010). Language sam-
pling: Does the length of the transcript matter? Language,
Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 41, 393–404.
Heilmann, J., & Westerveld, M. (2013). Bilingual language sample
analysis: Considerations and technological advances. Journal
of Clinical Practice in Speech-Language Pathology, 15, 87–93.
Leadholm, B., & Miller, J. (1992). Language sample analysis:
The Wisconsin guide. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of
Public Instruction.
Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through
grade twelve. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers.
Long, S. (2015). Computerized Profiling [Computer software].
Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University.
MacWhinney, B. (2000). The CHILDES project: Tools for analyz-
ing talk (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Mayer, M. (1969). Frog, where are you? New York, NY: Dial Press.
Miller, J. (1982). Assessing language production in children. Baltimore,
MD: University Park Press.
Miller, J. (1991). Quantifying productive language disorders. In
J. Miller (Ed.), Research on child language disorders: A decade
of progress (pp. 211–231). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
Miller, J., Andriacchi, K., & Nockerts, A. (Eds.) (2011). Assessing
language production using SALT software: A clinician’s guide
to language sample analysis. Middleton, WI: SALT Software
LLC.
Miller, J., Andriacchi, K., & Nockerts, A. (2013, July 1). Analysis
assistance: SLPs turn to language sample analysis software
to document progress on the Common Core State Standards.
Advance Healthcare Network for Speech and Hearing. Retrieved
from http://speech-language-pathology-audiology.advanceweb.
com/Features/Articles/Analysis-Assistance.aspx
Miller, J., Heilmann, J., Nockerts, A., Iglesias, A., Fabiano, L., &
Francis, D. (2006). Oral language and reading in bilingual chil-
dren. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 21, 30–43.
Miller, J., & Iglesias, A. (2012). Systematic Analysis of Language
Transcripts (SALT) [Computer software]. Middleton, WI:
SALT Software LLC.
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development,
38, 1–135.
Nelson, N. W. (2014a). Classroom-based writing assessment. In
A. Stone, E. Silliman, B. Ehren, & G. Wallach (Eds.), Handbook
of language and literacy development and disorders (2nd ed.,
pp. 524–543). New York, NY: Guilford.
Nelson, N. W. (2014b). Integrating language assessment, instruc-
tion, and intervention in an inclusive writing lab approach.
In B. Arfé, J. Dockrell, & V. Berninger (Eds.), Writing devel-
opment in children with hearing loss, dyslexia, or oral language
problems (pp. 273–300). New York, NY: Oxford University
Press.
Nippold, M. (2014). Language sampling with adolescents: Im-
plications for intervention (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Plural
Publishing.
112 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
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/media/wysiwyg/reference_database/
ExpoRDBDoc.pdf
SALT Software. (2015b). Summary of SALT transcription conven-
tions. Retrieved from http://saltsoftware.com/media/wysiwyg/
tranaids/TranConvSummary.pdf
SALT Software. (2015c). Subordination Index. Retrieved from
http://saltsoftware.com/media/wysiwyg/codeaids/SI_Scoring_
Guide.pdf
SALT Software. (2015d). Expository Scoring Scheme (ESS) guide.
Retrieved from http://saltsoftware.com/media/wysiwyg/
codeaids/ESS_Scoring_Guide.pdf
SALT Software. (2015e). SALT narrative story retell reference da-
tabase. Retrieved from http://saltsoftware.com/media/wysiwyg/
reference_database/NarStoryRetellRDBDoc.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/media/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/standards/pdf/las-stds.pdf