TY - JOUR
T1 - Psychometric evaluation of lexical diversity indices
T2 - Assessing length effects
AU - Fergadiotis, Gerasimos
AU - Wright, Heather Harris
AU - Green, Samuel B.
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2015 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association.
PY - 2015/6/1
Y1 - 2015/6/1
N2 - Purpose: Several novel techniques have been developed recently to assess the breadth of a speaker’s vocabulary exhibited in a language sample. The specific aim of this study was to increase our understanding of the validity of the scores generated by different lexical diversity (LD) estimation techniques. Four techniques were explored: D, Maas, measure of textual lexical diversity, and moving-average type–token ratio. Method: Four LD indices were estimated for language samples on 4 discourse tasks (procedures, eventcasts, story retell, and recounts) from 442 adults who are neurologically intact. The resulting data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Results: The scores for measure of textual lexical diversity and moving-average type–token ratio were stronger indicators of the LD of the language samples. The results for the other 2 techniques were consistent with the presence of method factors representing construct-irrelevant sources. Conclusion: These findings offer a deeper understanding of the relative validity of the 4 estimation techniques and should assist clinicians and researchers in the selection of LD measures of language samples that minimize construct-irrelevant sources.
AB - Purpose: Several novel techniques have been developed recently to assess the breadth of a speaker’s vocabulary exhibited in a language sample. The specific aim of this study was to increase our understanding of the validity of the scores generated by different lexical diversity (LD) estimation techniques. Four techniques were explored: D, Maas, measure of textual lexical diversity, and moving-average type–token ratio. Method: Four LD indices were estimated for language samples on 4 discourse tasks (procedures, eventcasts, story retell, and recounts) from 442 adults who are neurologically intact. The resulting data were analyzed using structural equation modeling. Results: The scores for measure of textual lexical diversity and moving-average type–token ratio were stronger indicators of the LD of the language samples. The results for the other 2 techniques were consistent with the presence of method factors representing construct-irrelevant sources. Conclusion: These findings offer a deeper understanding of the relative validity of the 4 estimation techniques and should assist clinicians and researchers in the selection of LD measures of language samples that minimize construct-irrelevant sources.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84934783393&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84934783393&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0280
DO - 10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-14-0280
M3 - Article
C2 - 25766139
AN - SCOPUS:84934783393
SN - 1092-4388
VL - 58
SP - 840
EP - 852
JO - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
JF - Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
IS - 3
ER -