Hilary Jonus

SERP 534
LSA Part 6
Summary Report
Case History/Background
Jaz is 4 years, 10 months old and is attending preschool three mornings a week. She was first
identified by the Speech-Language Pathologist working at the Kindergarten screening for the
local school district. At the screening it was noted that Jaz' language was marked by multiple
word errors and possible low MLU. Her preschool teacher confirmed these observations about
Jaz's oral language production, but had no concerns about her receptive language, cognitive, or
motor functioning. The SLP initiated a formal referral to assess for possible oral language delay
or disorder. As part of the diagnostic assessment, a conversational sample was elicited by the
SLP following the protocol used for the Salt Conversation database.
Assessment Measure
The SALT protocol used to elicit the language sample was conversation with an adult partner.
The primary topics addressed revolved around cats and dogs, Jazs grandma and siblings, and
what her and her family like to do for fun. The examiner encouraged Jaz to engage in
conversation by discussing topics that interested her, such as pets and the video game she plays
with her family. He also encouraged her by constantly asking questions, therefore the majority
of Jazs responses were clearly related to the questions she was asked by the examiner. Jaz was
an active conversational partner, but the majority of her conversation was responses to the
examiners questions; she was ever the one to ask questions to maintain the conversation. Her
responses were mostly prompt with no delay. As for her ability to maintain a conversational
topic, Jaz talked about a specific topic over several utterances and exchanges with the examiner.
She did not introduce new topics. The examiner is the one who introduced new topics.
SALT Analysis
1. The speakers name is Jaz and her current age is 4;10. The samples selected for the
database comparisons were +/- 6 months of her age. Jazs age is .95 standard deviations
below the mean.
2. I modified the analysis set by excluding Jazs yes/no responses to questions from the
analysis because her percentage of those responses was 26%, which is more than 2
percentage points above the relevant PK percentage level of 21%. I also excluded Jazs
% of responses to questions from the analysis because her percentage of those responses
was 52%, which is more than 2 percentage points above the database PK percentages,
which is 46%.
3. There were 36 samples matched by age to which Transcript Length and Intelligibility
were compared. Under the Transcript Length category, all measures fall within 1 SD of

the mean. All the measures under the Intelligibility category also fall within 1 SD of the
mean. Therefore, there are no strengths or weaknesses in these categories because the
scores are average compared to the database.
4. For the balance of measures on the Standard Measures Report, there were 22 samples
equated by same number of total words (cut at 276 NTW).
- Syntax/Morphology: MLU in words equaled 5.1 which is -.95 SD, within the
average range when compared to the database, but close to 1 SD below the mean.
Jaz had no strengths in this category, meaning she did not perform better than agematched peers in this category. Jaz showed definite weakness in MLU in
Morphemes and SI Composite score. In MLU in Morphemes, Jaz scored 5.43,
which is -1.16 SD below the mean. In SI Composite score, she scored -1.80
below the mean. Jaz performed poorer than age-matches peers in both of these
variables.
- Further analysis of the SI Composite scores using the Subordination Index
Analysis report indicates that utterances of [SI-0] are 2.86 SD above the mean,
which is an area of concern. SI-0 signifies a subordination index of 0 clauses
within an utterance. SI-2 indicates 2 clauses within an utterance, etc. The report
also indicates that utterances of [SI-2] are -1.40 SD below the mean, which is also
an area of concern. SI measures syntactic complexity, therefore the higher the SI
code, the more complex syntax the child has. Jazs SI scores were areas of
concern because they were low, which indicated her syntax is simple and not
complex.
- Follow-up analysis on the low MLU was conducted using the Database: Word
List, Bound Morphemes and Utterance Distribution report. Under the Word Lists
Jaz used negatives a total of 2 times, which falls within the average mean, but she
only used 1 type of negative word, which falls below the average mean by -1.10
SD. Therefore, Jazs use of negatives is an area of concern. The report also says
Jaz used a total of 27 personal pronouns, which is -1.23 SD below the average
mean, but the number of different personal pronouns that she produced was 1.51
SD above the average mean. Since the type of personal pronouns is above the
mean, it is not an area of concern. However, it would be beneficial to view her
score as an area of a concern so that she receives further instruction to increase
her use of personal pronouns.
- Further analysis of the the Database: Word List, Bound Morphemes and
Utterance Distribution report, under Bound Morphemes, Jazs scores fall within
the standard deviation, therefore within average range, when compared to the
database. However, a review of the Bound Morpheme Table indicated there is an
area of concern for some of Jazs bound morpheme use. The table shows that Jaz
used the bound morpheme, /3s, in 0 occurrences and omitted it 8 times. This
indicates that Jaz used the bound morpheme, /3s, in 0% obligatory context, which
is an area of concern. Her use of the bound morpheme /s was also low, used in
only 66.67% of obligatory context. The bound morphemes, /ED, /S, and /Z were
all used with 100% obligatory context and are not an area of concern. Despite
being below average range in MLU in words and morphemes, Jazs total Number
of Utterances by Utterance Length is above the database mean. She scored a total

of 40 in her utterance length in words, while the database mean is 35. She scored
a total of 40 in her utterance length in morphemes, while the database mean is 37.
Semantics: Number Total Words (NTW) equaled 203 which is within 1 SD of the
mean. Number Different Words (NDW) equaled 92 which is within 1 SD of the
mean. Type Token Ratio (TTR) equaled .45 which is within 1 SD of the mean.
These 3 variables are within average range when compared to the database and
are not areas of concern. Jaz had no strengths under semantics. She showed
weakness in Moving-Average TTR (100), a measure of vocabulary diversity
across the conversation. Her score was .50, which is -1.62 SD below the mean,
which is an area of concern. The follow up analysis is explained under the Word
List information discussed under the syntax/morphology section.
Discourse: % Responses to Questions was 73.4%, which falls within 1 SD of the
mean, therefore within average range when compared to the database and not an
area of concern. Mean Turn Length (words) equaled 5.03, which is -.98 SD from
the mean, very close to 1 SD below the mean and potentially an area of concern.
She did not show any strengths in discourse. She showed a weakness in
Utterances with Overlapping Speech. Her score equaled 21, which is 3.83 SD
above the mean. Her high score is an area of concern. She also showed weakness
in Interrupted Other Speaker. She was 2.92 SD above the mean. This is also an
area of concern because she should not be interrupting the speaker. A review of
Turn Length in Number of Words in the Discourse Summary shows that Jaz
scored a total of 64 turn lengths in number of words, while the database mean was
41.
As for responses to examiner questions, the majority of Jazs responses are clearly
related to the questions she is asked. One example of an appropriate response is
when the examiner asked how old her sister is and Jaz answered that she is ten.
Another example of an appropriate response is when the examiner asked Jaz what
her and her family like to do for fun and Jaz responded by saying family fun
day.
As for her ability to maintain a conversational topic, Jaz talks about a specific
topic over several utterances and exchanges with the examiner. She does not
introduce new topics. The examiner is the one who introduces new topics. An
example of utterances that demonstrate her ability to maintain a topic is in the
beginning of the transcript when they are talking about pets. He asks simple
questions and she maintains the conversation by saying things such as I like little
dogs and Michelle got two cats. However, she never asks questions to
maintain the conversation.
Verbal Facility: Words/Minute equaled 66.05 which is within 1 SD of the mean.
Pauses Within Utterances equaled 1 which is within 1 SD of the mean. Pauses
Between Utterances equaled 0 which is within 1 SD of the mean. Abandoned
Utterances equaled 1 which is within 1 SD of the mean. These 4 variables are
within average range when compared to the database and are not areas of concern.
Jaz did not show any strengths in this category. She showed a weakness in Maze
Words as % of Total Words. Her score equaled 21% which is 1.88 SD above the
mean. Having a score above the mean for maze words as a % of total words is an

area of concern because she may be having utterance formulation problems since
she is constantly starting and restarting utterances more than peers her same age.
Follow-up analysis conducted using the Database: Maze Summary report
indicates that Utterances with Mazes (15) is 1.76 SD above the mean, Total
Number of Mazes (18) is 1.05 SD above the mean, Total Maze Words (54) is 1.98
SD above the mean, Average Words per Maze (3) is 1.96 SD above the mean, Part
Word Revisions (2) is 1.18 SD above the mean, Phrase Revisions (8) is 1.73 SD
above the mean, and Phrase Repetitions (3) is 1.19 SD above the mean. The
results of this report indicate that most of the mazes Jaz produces are revision, but
that she additionally produces some repetition of phrases. Jaz produced a total of
38% of utterances with mazes by utterance length in morphemes, which is much
higher than the database mean of 25%.
Errors: In this category, there are no variables for which Jaz performed within 1
SD of the database. She was above average for all 3 variables. % Utterances with
Errors was 57.5%, which is 5.78 SD above the mean. Number of Omissions was
5.76 SD above the mean. Number of Error Codes was 5.65 above the mean.
These scores are areas of concern because they fall outside the SD in the
undesired direction. They are all weaknesses because errors and omissions are
not desired scores.
Further analysis of Jazs errors by looking at the Analyze: Omissions and Error
Codes report indicate that 2 out of her 3 total omitted words are a form of to be.
The 2 to be words that she omitted was is and was. In both cases, they should
have been used as a main verb. Looking at her Word-Level Error Codes, I noticed
a pattern. Her biggest area of concern was using the auxiliary verb have/has. 8
out of the 22 total errors involved errors related to has or have. Another pattern I
noticed in her errors was the incorrect manner in which she used pronouns. 9 out
of the 22 total errors involved errors related to pronouns.

Interpretation
Jaz typically performed within the average range compared to the database of children who are
the same age as she is. She was open and friendly, mostly stayed on topic, and her speech was
intelligible. However, Jaz exhibited many areas of concern that impacts her language skills and
ability to engage in conversation. One of the most significant areas of concern is her syntax and
morphology use, specifically her MLU in morphemes and SI scores. Jazs low SI score, -1.80
SD below the mean, indicates she uses very simple syntax. Her low syntactic complexity and
morphology use would make her less likely to engage in conversation, since complex syntax
requires more vocabulary use and expressive language which she seems to lack. Jazs sample
revealed challenges with bound morphemes. If Jaz continues to use the wrong form of words
due to her incorrect use of morphemes, she may become difficult to understand. This would
affect Jazs interactions with peers and teachers as her conversational engagement may become
limited due to fear of being misunderstood. Another area of concern is her semantics use. Her
vocabulary diversity is below the average range within her age group, which limits her
expressive language during conversation. Jazs sample demonstrates that she showed weakness
in utterances with overlapping speech and with interruptions. This may impact her
conversational interactions, as peers will not want to talk to Jaz if they are going to be interrupted

or talked over. Jaz does well with staying on topic during conversation, but she is rarely the one
to introduce new topics or engage in a new conversation. Going into kindergarten next year, Jaz
needs to be able to engage in conversation with her peers by asking questions and starting a new
topic of conversation. Another area of concern is her excessive use of mazes, mostly revisions
but sometimes repetitions. 21% of her total words were maze words. These constant revisions
of starting and restarting utterances presents a challenge for Jazs conversational skills because
this indicates that she may have trouble with word retrieval and utterance formulation, which
would make her less likely to engage in conversation. Her final area of concern is her abundance
of errors. She showed high error scores in % utterances with errors, number of omissions, and
number of error codes. There were noticeable patterns within her errors, such as errors omitting
to be verbs as a main verb, errors using the auxiliary verb have/has, and errors using
pronouns in an incorrect manner.
Plan
Based on the results of Jazs language sample, I believe intervention is necessary.
Recommendations include:
- Due to her lack of syntactic complexity, specific instruction of complex syntax in
a conversational context is recommended by increasing her knowledge of
sentence structure starting with conjunctions and then working up to utterances.
- Direct instruction of morphology by providing intense vocabulary instruction,
increase decoding skills, and create understanding of affixes.
- Promote vocabulary enrichment, using words she will use in everyday life in the
classroom and with her peers.
- To improve her pragmatic language, working on keeping her patience while
someone is talking until they are finished so she understands the curtesy of not
interrupting.
- Generate a personal goal of approaching a peer and engaging in a conversation of
her choice, once per day for example.
- Taking the time to generate and organize her thoughts before speaking in order to
prevent her constant revisions and repetitions by using word retrieval strategies
and utterance expansion strategies.
- Verb forms and pronoun practice.
References
Miller, J. F., Andriacchi, K., & Nockerts, A. (2015). Assessing language production using SALT
software: A clinician's guide to language sample analysis. Middleton, WI: SALT
Software, LLC.
Case Study Practice. (n.d.). Retrieved November 30, 2016, from http://saltsoftware.com/cspractice/
Owens, R.E. (2016). Language Development: An introduction. Boston, MA: Pearson.
Stowe, M. (n.d.). School of EducationTraining & Technical Assistance Center. Retrieved

November 30, 2016, from

http://education.wm.edu/centers/ttac/resources/articles/teachtechnique/teachingmorpholo
gy/index.php
Assignment Reflection
This assignment helped me understand the importance of a language sample analysis (LSA) in
assessing and capturing an individuals typical and functional language use. In the beginning of
the assignment, it was hard for me to see the point of all the specific scoring and rules of the
transcription process, because I knew there were other simpler assessment tests available.
However, by the end of the assignment I realized LSA is the only process that can truly capture
and measure the language use of any individual and that each detailed step is an important part of
the process. The SALT training courses and the step by step video instructions provided on D2L
were the main things that facilitated my learning and understanding of the analysis process. I
understood parts 1-4 relatively well, but part 5 was very confusing to me. Therefore, I would
recommend including more detailed step by step instructions as well as more examples for the
SMR follow up analysis.