LSHSS

Research Article

The Rules of the Game: Properties of a

Database of Expository Language Samples
John Heilmanna and Thomas O. Maloneb

Purpose: The authors created a database of expository oral were effectively classified into four distinct dimensions:
language samples with the aims of describing the nature of syntactic complexity, expository content, discourse difficulties,
students’ expository discourse and providing benchmark and lexical diversity.
data for typically developing preteen and teenage students. Conclusion: Analysis of expository data provides a functional
Method: Using a favorite game or sport protocol, language and curriculum-based assessment that has the potential to
samples were collected from 235 typically developing students allow clinicians to document multiple dimensions of children’s
in Grades 5, 6, 7, and 9. Twelve language measures were expressive language skills. Further development and testing
summarized from this database and analyses were completed of the database will establish the feasibility of using it to
to test for differences across ages and topics. To determine compare individual students’ expository discourse skills to
whether distinct dimensions of oral language could be those of their typically developing peers.
captured with language measures from these expository
samples, a factor analysis was completed.
Results: Modest differences were observed in language Key Words: language sample analysis, expository discourse,
measures across ages and topics. The language measures assessment, language, diagnostics

I
ndividuals with specific language impairment (SLI) Although SLPs working with older students rarely
have significant difficulty with the comprehension face new referrals for SLI, under the requirements of the
and production of language in the absence of signifi- Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; Indi-
cant cognitive and perceptual deficits (Leonard, 2014). For viduals With Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004), they
most individuals with SLI, the disorder presents in early must regularly conduct evaluations for determining con-
childhood and persists into adulthood (Stothard, Snowling, tinuing eligibility as well as assessments for determining
Bishop, Chipchase, & Kaplan, 1998). Much of the research treatment objectives and monitoring continuing progress.
on children with SLI has focused on the preschool and Under IDEA, such testing must gauge the extent of a stu-
early elementary school–age years, when children are mak- dent’s progress within the curriculum and be racially and
ing the critical (and language-heavy) transition to literacy culturally unbiased. Although numerous norm-referenced
(Scarborough, 2009). However, in subsequent school years language tests are available for older students (hereafter
and into adolescence, children with SLI continue to experi- referring to students in Grades 5–9), SLPs cannot rely on
ence significant difficulties with oral and written language them solely when assessing their students. Norm-referenced
(Stothard et al., 1998) and require the services of speech- tests can be biased against children from cultural and linguis-
language pathologists (SLPs). In particular, SLPs need to tic minorities (Battle, 2011). Furthermore, norm-referenced
pay attention to how these children’s deficits affect academic tests are most effective when identifying the presence of a
performance because language skills are central to much of disorder but have limited utility in providing a description
the junior high and senior high school curricula (National of the nature of the disorder (McCauley & Swisher, 1984).
Governors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010). In developing a profile of a child’s relative strengths and

a
University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee
b Disclosure: The data were collected by practicing clinicians (who have no financial
School District of Brown Deer, Wisconsin
interests in SALT Software, LLC) and were transcribed at the transcription lab
Correspondence to John Heilmann: [email protected] of SALT Software, LLC. Dr. Jon Miller and the employees of SALT Software
Editor: Marilyn Nippold provided the transcription as an in-kind service for this research. The data analysis,
Associate Editor: Lynne Hewitt interpretation, and manuscript preparation were completed by the two authors
listed in the byline, neither of whom has a financial interest in SALT Software,
Received July 17, 2013
LLC. No members of SALT Software, LLC, were involved in the writing of this
Revision received March 17, 2014 manuscript. The authors believe that there is no real conflict of interest, but they
Accepted June 2, 2014 wish to acknowledge the role of SALT Software, LLC, to address any perceived
DOI: 10.1044/2014_LSHSS-13-0050 conflict of interest.

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 45 • 277–290 • October 2014 • © American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 277
weaknesses, SLPs can instead draw upon naturalistic mea- Studies of expository discourse have documented its
sures to provide a rich description of language ability within effectiveness in distinguishing children with SLI and non-
a functional context (Damico, Secord, & Wiig, 1992). specific language impairment (NLI) from their typically
Because it provides a method for systematically analyz- developing peers, thus providing an evidence base for its
ing children’s production of naturalistic discourse, language use in clinical assessments (Nippold, Mansfield, Billow, &
sample analysis (LSA) is a recommended best practice for Tomblin, 2008; Scott & Windsor, 2000). However, a major
clinical assessments (American Speech-Language-Hearing obstacle to clinical application of expository LSA is deter-
Association, 2004; Paul & Norbury, 2012). However, accord- mining what constitutes an age-appropriate level of perfor-
ing to survey data, SLPs who work with junior high or senior mance. To get such comparative data, clinicians can refer to
high school students are less likely to use language sampling published studies describing children’s performance on ex-
than their colleagues who work with preschool or elementary pository tasks. However, many of the studies’ samples were
school–age children (Hux, Morris-Friehe, & Sanger, 1993). drawn from different populations using different elicitation
These authors speculated that one cause of the discrepancy protocols, which can have a significant impact on the mea-
might be the lack of widely available language sampling pro- sures (Westerveld & Heilmann, 2012). In addition, the time
cedures for students in the more advanced educational levels. requirement to generate tables of normal performance is pro-
In recent years, several investigators have documented hibitive for most busy clinicians.
that LSA continues to be a powerful assessment tool through- An alternative approach is to establish a large-scale
out the junior high and senior high school years, particularly normative database. Using databases developed with the
when examining children’s use of language to convey infor- software program Systematic Analysis of Language Tran-
mation through expository discourse (see Nippold, 2014). scripts (SALT; Miller & Iglesias, 2012), Heilmann, Miller,
Planned expository discourse, both spoken and written, is and Nockerts (2010) compared measures from the conver-
directly related to the curriculum for older students and is sational language samples of children with SLI to those of
thus a prominent feature of the Common Core State Stan- typically developing speakers and thereby correctly identi-
dards for English Language Arts (National Governors fied 81% of the children who had a true impairment. Rec-
Association Center for Best Practices, 2010), which have ognizing the strength of analyzing children’s expository
been adopted by 45 states,1 four territories, the District of language data within the clinical context and the power of
Columbia, and the Department of Defense. For example, large databases of normal speakers, Nippold, Mansfield, and
students in Grades 9–10 are expected, when speaking, to Billow (2007) and Scott (2010) have recommended the crea-
“present information, findings, and supporting evidence tion of large-scale expository databases to provide bench-
clearly, concisely, and logically” (p. 50). Writing standards mark data for typically developing adolescents and young
for Grades 9–10 similarly mandate that students produce adults. In serving as a school-based SLP at the middle and
“informative/explanatory texts, including the narration of high school level, the second author observed repeatedly that
historical events, scientific procedures/experiments, or tech- his students with language difficulties struggled to produce
nical processes” (p. 65). expository discourse, including how to play their favorite
When choosing a task to elicit a language sample, SLPs game or sport. These clinical experiences led to his interest in
need to consider not only its connection to the curriculum creating the expository database described in this manuscript.
but also how engaging the task is for the child. For instance,
whereas play-based language samples can elicit complex
language in preschool-age children, Evans and Craig (1992) Elicitation Considerations for Expository LSA
documented that play-based samples generated less com- The first step in creating a database is to develop a
plex language when compared to structured interviews in protocol for eliciting the samples that facilitates reliable
8- to 9-year-old children with SLI. Both spoken and written comparisons to the database. The goal is to create a proce-
expository tasks have been found to elicit more complex dure that generates meaningful data related to the curricu-
language from older students when compared to the lesser lum while being repeatable across children. In collecting
demands of conversation and some narrative tasks, thereby their expository samples, Scott and Windsor (2000) had all
providing a more challenging and motivating communica- children describe the same content by prompting them to
tive task for older students (Nippold, Hesketh, Duthie, & retell events depicted in a 15-min film about life in the de-
Mansfield, 2005; Scott & Windsor, 2000). sert. In contrast, Nippold et al. (2005) allowed their par-
ticipants more freedom to individualize their expositions
by prompting children to describe their favorite game or
1
Since the submission of this article, the number of states adopting the sport. Having each child select his or her favorite game
Common Core Standards has dropped from 45 to 44. In addition, or sport would appear to introduce additional variability
Missouri and South Carolina have each adopted a process that may
across children (who are describing different content); how-
eventually replace the standards we reference, but, for now, we still
count both states as adopters, as do the authors of the Common Core
ever, this individualization presumably increases the mean-
(http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/). We have ingfulness of the productions due to the child’s personal
included Minnesota as one of the 44 adopting states in the current knowledge and interest in the activity. Moreover, descrip-
discussion; Minnesota has adopted the English Language Arts tions of a favorite game or sport are likely to be culturally
Standards, which is the focus of this article, but not the Math Standards. unbiased because all cultures have games and sports particular

278 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 45 • 277–290 • October 2014
to them, and the participants were free to draw on their cul- Testing the Properties of the Database
tural experience in making their selection.
Having a large database of expository language sam-
For our expository database, we too chose to prompt
ples affords the opportunity to test the properties of various
children to describe their favorite game or sport. We be-
language measures, which will provide guidance for SLPs
lieved this task would motivate students by allowing them
wishing to use expository data in their clinical assessments.
to draw on their personal experiences. Moreover, it aligns
well with academic expectations. For example, Wisconsin’s Changes with increasing age. Previous cross-sectional
Model Academics Standards for Physical Education require studies of spoken exposition have documented slow but
students in Grades 6–8 to “describe the critical elements of steady growth in syntactic complexity from childhood into
a sport-specific skill (e.g., a basketball free throw or forearm adulthood. Syntactic measures found to increase with age
pass).” Students are also expected to “explain at least two include mean length of utterance (MLU; as measured in
game tactics involved in playing net/wall sports (e.g., tennis, T-units), clausal density (i.e., the average number of clauses
badminton, volleyball, etc.) . . . [and] . . . at least two game per T-unit), and the frequency of relative clauses (Berman
tactics involved in invasion sports (e.g., soccer, basketball, & Verhoeven, 2002; Nippold et al, 2005; Nippold et al., 2007;
handball, etc.”; Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Verhoeven et al., 2002). In addition, age-related increases for
Student Services/Prevention, and Wellness Team, 2010, exposition have been reported for several nonsyntactic mea-
p. 55). For Grades 9–12, the standards call on students to sures: (a) type–token ratio, which has been interpreted as a
“describe offensive, defensive, and transitional skills and measure of lexical diversity (Berman & Verhoeven, 2002);
strategies in team and individual sports” (p. 67). In addition, and (b) sample length, which has been viewed as a measure
students are expected to “describe the impact of new skills of language output (Berman & Verhoeven, 2002, using total
and tactics . . . [and] . . . explain appropriate tactical decisions words; Nippold et al., 2005, using T-units). By examining
in a competitive activity” (p. 69). a wider range of language measures in our study, we hoped
The elicitation protocol in the current study varied to determine which ones are most sensitive to age-related
from Nippold et al. (2005) in two important ways: by changes.
introducing planning time and materials and by using Effect of topic. In addition, we were interested in de-
writing to support the production of oral language samples. termining if the freedom to choose a topic in the favorite
Whereas the participants in Nippold et al. began speaking game or sport (FGS) protocol had a significant effect on
immediately after hearing the instructions and were asked the resulting language measures. Previous studies examin-
only a single follow-up question about strategies, we pro- ing the FGS protocol allowed children to select any game
vided the students with an outline identifying the key com- or sport (team or individual) and presumably assumed that
ponents of the expository (see Appendix A). Students were the topic had minimal influence on the measures. In the
given the opportunity to plan for each aspect of their ex- present study, we tested for clinically significant differences
planation by writing and/or drawing. After completing their across three topic choices: team sports, such as football or
plan, students were then encouraged to refer to it while basketball; individual sports, such as golf or bowling; and
speaking. These procedures were motivated by current games, such as card games like 500 rummy or board games
trends in authentic performance assessments that encourage like Monopoly.
teachers to make curricular expectations clear to students Effects of elicitation procedures. We were next inter-
(Wiggins & McTighe, 2005). In this case, we wished to ested in how children’s performance using our modified
convey that a detailed and comprehensive explanation was FGS protocol would compare to existing reports in the lit-
expected. In a study of written narratives, Sun and Nippold erature. In particular, we questioned whether adding extra
(2012) took a similar approach to planning by giving their planning time and combining spoken and written modali-
subjects “a detailed outline” that could be used “to address ties in the FGS protocol would affect the resulting language
a set of key story grammar elements” (p. 5) as they wrote. measures. Differences in language sample measures have
Moreover, we believed that using the written modal- been observed within children’s narrative productions based
ity to support the oral language samples aligned better with on the presence or absence of pictures to support the child’s
the standard curriculum when compared to previous methods story production (Schneider & Dubé, 2005; Westerveld &
of eliciting expository discourse. Our approach follows Heilmann, 2012) and the amount of modeling provided
Scott and Stokes (1995), who suggested that with older stu- prior to initiating the narrative task (Gummersall & Strong,
dents, challenging and curriculum-based language sampling 1999). We know of no studies to date that have directly
contexts often involve a mix of speaking and writing. Fur- examined the effects of variant elicitation procedures on
thermore, we believed that using writing to support oral language measures for expository discourse.
production was consistent with the philosophy of the Com- Using expository data to describe children’s profiles.
mon Core Standards. Although separate grade-level strands Clinicians are encouraged to use descriptive and naturalis-
were devised for speaking, listening, reading, and writing tic assessments, such as LSA, when describing the nature
objectives, the Common Core Standards presume that “the of a child’s impairment and identifying relative strengths
processes of communication are closely connected” and thus and weaknesses across language dimensions (McCauley,
call for “an integrated model of literacy” (National Gover- 2001; Paul & Norbury, 2012). These rich descriptions can
nors Association Center for Best Practices, 2010, p. 4). be used to characterize a student’s relative strengths and

Heilmann & Malone: Properties of Expository Samples 279

weaknesses and assist with planning individualized treat- and allowed the research team to send a written request for
ments. However, there is limited empirical support for the participation to all families of students who met the inclu-
practice of using assessment data to develop clinical profiles. sionary criteria. Children were ineligible for the study if they
Tomblin and Zhang (2006) completed a thorough were currently receiving special education services or English-
testing of language dimensionality using multiple norm- language-learning services, as determined by a review of the
referenced language assessments and documented that school records. Samples were collected from a total of
their measures could be broken into the two dimensions 235 students who had a mean age of 12;6 (years;months;
of vocabulary and sentence use. Because measures from SD = 1;5; range = 10;7–15;9). Children were evenly split
standardized tests are not designed to provide detailed de- for gender; 49% of the participants were female and 51%
scriptions of children’s relative strengths and weaknesses were male.
(McCauley & Swisher, 1984), analyses of language dimen- On all students for whom informed consent was ob-
sionality should be improved by using descriptive lan- tained, demographic information was collected and ana-
guage assessments, such as measures from language samples. lyzed. Our aim was to have the students in this database
In fact, Westerveld and Gillon (2010) documented that mea- be representative of the broader population of monolingual
sures from oral narratives could be broken into three distinct English-speaking preteen and teenage students. However,
dimensions: content, grammatical ability, and grammatical because the present study was a grassroots effort with a
complexity. Having a large database of expository samples limited budget, we relied on SLPs who volunteered to col-
provides the opportunity to test for the dimensionality of lect samples from as diverse a population as was available
children’s expository language. If there are indeed multiple to us in Wisconsin. Earlier studies by the first author have
dimensions of language that can be captured from exposi- documented that geographical differences had a modest
tory language measures, SLPs would have support for the effect on children’s narrative language sample measures
use of expository LSA to develop profiles of older students’ when comparing children from Wisconsin to children from
language skills and plan appropriate treatments based on San Diego (Heilmann, Miller, & Nockerts, 2010) and when
the students’ relative strengths and weaknesses. comparing children from the United States to children
Upon compiling a database of expository language from New Zealand (Westerveld & Heilmann, 2012). There-
samples, we had the opportunity to examine the nature of fore, we attempted to closely match the racial and socio-
expository discourse in older students. In a first step toward economic demographics of the state of Wisconsin. The
developing a validated clinical protocol, we documented children’s socioeconomic status was documented by deter-
the properties of this database by addressing the following mining the percentage that received free or reduced-price
research questions: lunches (Ensminger et al., 2000), which revealed that 24%
of the children were eligible for the program. The race and
1. For samples elicited with a modified FGS protocol,
ethnicity breakdown of the participants was 80% White,
were there significant age-related changes within a
11% African American, 7% Hispanic or Latino, and 2%
wide range of syntactic and nonsyntactic language
Asian. This is slightly more diverse than the state demo-
measures?
graphics reported in the 2010 United States Census, which
2. Does the topic selected (i.e., team sport, individual were 83% White, 7% African American, 6% Hispanic or
sport, or game) have a substantial effect on the resulting Latino, and 3% Asian.
language measures?
3. Were the language measures from the current database
substantially dissimilar from those found in the
Procedure
expository literature for children of comparable age? Samples were collected by 70 school-based SLPs from
students who attended 55 different schools located within
4. When a factor analysis is applied to language
seven Wisconsin school districts. Each SLP collected 3.0
measures from the current database, do they capture
unique dimensions of children’s spoken exposition? (SD = 1.6) samples on average. All examiners stated that
they were familiar with the language sampling procedures,
held a Certificate of Clinical Competence from ASHA, and
Method held an educator’s license from the Wisconsin Department
of Public Instruction. Two SLPs provided training on the
Participants recruitment and elicitation procedures. The second author
The data reported in this manuscript are combined was the trainer for approximately half of the clinicians. An-
from two separate projects involving typically developing other SLP with over 20 years of experience collecting and
children who attended public schools in Wisconsin. The analyzing language samples was responsible for training the
first project collected expository samples from 7th (n = 41) remaining clinicians. Examiners first reviewed a written
and 9th (n = 39) grade students (Malone et al., 2008), and overview of the project that was followed by a 1-hr training
the second project added samples from 5th (n = 86) and session. The SLPs contacted the second author for clarifica-
6th (n = 69) grade students (Malone, Heilmann, Miller, tion whenever questions arose.
DiVall-Rayan, & Rolland, 2010). For both projects, admin- Participants were asked to explain how to play a fa-
istrators at the school or district level approved the study vorite game or sport to a naïve listener. Examiners read

280 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 45 • 277–290 • October 2014
from a script (see Appendix B) that provided explicit in- did in fact increase during the school-age years and into
structions for completing the task and established the expec- adulthood (Nippold et al., 2005).
tation that students provide a comprehensive and detailed Clausal density (CD). Scott (1988) described how
explanation that was at least 5 min in length. Once the partic- school-age children’s utterances lengthened and became in-
ipants had selected a game or sport, they were given a plan- creasingly complex by using a greater number of subordinate
ning sheet that listed the eight expected components of the clauses. Although children’s use of subordinate clauses is
explanation and included a description of what information reflected in MLCU, calculating the frequency of subordinate
was to be presented for each component (see Appendix A). clause production provides a more direct assessment of chil-
Participants were then asked to take a few minutes to plan dren’s use of complex syntax. Previous studies have docu-
their explanation either by taking notes in the space provided mented that young children rarely use subordinate clauses
or by drawing a diagram or graphic organizer on the back (Scott, 1988) and that there are small incremental gains from
of the planning sheet. Examiners reported that the average school-age years into adulthood (Loban, 1976; Nippold
time to produce a sample was approximately 20 minutes, et al., 2005, 2007). In the current study, CD was calculated
with students devoting the majority of their time toward for each transcript following the procedures described in
completing the planning sheet. Nippold et al. (2005), whereby we summed the total number
of independent clauses and finite subordinate clauses and
then divided that total by the number of C-units.
Data Transcription and Analysis In addition, each finite subordinate clause was coded
according to its syntactic function (as described in Nippold
All expository samples were digitally recorded and
et al., 2005). An adverbial clause functions as an adverb
sent to SALT Software, LLC, for transcription by trained
by describing a cause or condition; a nominal clause func-
research assistants. Each research assistant (RA) was re-
tions as a noun phrase in either the subject or object posi-
quired to complete at least 10 hr of training on the standard
tion; and a relative clause functions as an adjective by
transcription conventions for the SALT program. The tran-
describing the noun that precedes it. The following C-unit
scribers for this project completed an additional 5 hr of
is drawn from a student’s explanation of a penalty in hurl-
training and practice for coding the Expository Scoring
ing, a Gaelic field game (Worth, 1990); it consists of seven
Scheme (ESS), a rubric that will be explained below. At the
clauses and features all three types of subordinate clauses:
end of the training, each RA transcribed and coded five
complete language samples, which required at least 90% And if it’s by the goalie [adverbial clause]
agreement with a master transcript. or a point is scored [adverbial clause]
Each sample was transcribed and coded via consensus or it goes in the goal [adverbial clause],
transcription, where one RA completed an initial transcript it’s a puck-out [independent clause],
that was checked by a second RA who listened to the sample which is [relative clause]
and noted any disagreements. These discrepancies were dis- the goalie just hits it [nominal clause]
cussed and resolved, with the final decision made by the as far as he can to his teammates [adverbial clause].
first transcriber. Utterances were segmented into communi-
For each clause type, we controlled for sample length
cation units (C-units; Loban, 1976). A C-unit is defined as
by dividing the total number of clauses by the number of
an independent clause plus all associated subordinate clauses.
C-units in the sample. Nippold et al. (2005) documented
The ESS was coded by hand after completing the initial tran-
that preadolescent children predominantly used adverbial
scription, as was clausal density (see below for details).
and nominal clauses, with a substantially lower frequency
of relative clauses. However, relative clauses were found to
have the strongest age-related growth.
Language Measures Lexical diversity. Measures of lexical diversity docu-
The SALT program was used to generate multiple ment the richness of vocabulary that children use and are
language measures for each transcript. All measures were thought to reflect overall vocabulary skills (Leadholm &
limited to C-units that were complete and intelligible. Al- Miller, 1992). Watkins, Kelly, Harbers, and Hollis (1995)
though SALT can generate dozens of measures, we limited documented that measuring the number of different words
our analysis to those measures that have been described (NDW) for a predetermined sample size was most effective
in the literature as being developmentally robust in older for identifying children with SLI. In the current study, we cal-
students and/or sensitive to differences between children culated the NDW for the first 150 words in each child’s sam-
with SLI and their typically developing peers. ple, a procedure comparable to Scott and Windsor (2000).
Mean length of C-unit (MLCU). Calculating the Productivity. Measures of productivity document the
average number of words in a child’s C-unit provides an amount of information produced by the child and the effi-
overall index of children’s language growth and is particu- ciency with which the child produced the sample. With a
larly relevant to syntactic development (Scott & Stokes, predetermined language sampling task, such as telling a
1995). Studies of expository language samples, which chal- story or describing a procedure, there is an expectation that
lenge older children to produce complex language, have re- children produce an adequately detailed description with
vealed that measures of utterance length (such as MLCU) sufficient length. However, children with SLI tend to

Heilmann & Malone: Properties of Expository Samples 281

produce significantly shorter samples than their typically these eight components of the expository sample presented
developing peers in both narrative (Strong & Shaver, 1991) on the planning sheet. In addition, transcribers completed
and expository discourse (Scott & Windsor, 2000). Be- two additional global ratings on the appropriateness and so-
cause the children in the present study were instructed to phistication of terminology used in the sample (terminology)
talk for at least 5 min, we also expected that length would and the level of cohesiveness throughout the production
be an indicator of a child’s overall skill in generating ex- (cohesion; Halliday & Hasan, 1976). Each of the 10 charac-
pository discourse. teristics was scored on a 0–5 scale. Anchors were provided
The number of total words (NTW) was our first for performance that was rated as follows: 1 = immature/
measure of sample length and was calculated by summing minimal use, 2 = emerging/inconsistent, and 5 = proficient. If
the number of main body words. The number of total the RAs judged that the child’s performance was between
C-units (TCU), our second measure of length, was calcu- two of the anchors, they were instructed to give a score of
lated by summing the number of complete and intelligible 2 or 4. A score of 0 was given if the student failed to address
C-units produced by the child. Although we expected NTW a particular component of the rubric.
and TCU to be closely related, we believed that TCU would Verbal fluency. We used two measures to document
be less constrained by children’s use of complex syntax. That how fluently children produced connected discourse.
is, even if the child produces short, simple utterances with Words per minute (WPM) represents the speed with which
minimal subordination, he or she may still relate a large a child produced the sample and was calculated by divid-
amount of information that would likely be better captured ing all the words produced in the sample by the elapsed
using TCU. Conversely, another child may pack a consider- time. Whereas an abnormally high speaking rate can neg-
able amount of information into a relatively small number atively affect a child’s communicative ability, a faster
of utterances by using complex syntax; for that child NTW speaking rate suggests that a speaker was able to organize
may serve as a better measure of productivity. and generate his/her thoughts coherently and fluently
Expository Scoring Scheme (ESS). In addition to the (Leadholm & Miller, 1992). The second measure of verbal
utterance-level microstructural measures described above, fluency was derived from coding breakdowns in produc-
children’s connected discourse often has concepts that tran- tions. In natural discourse, most speakers spontaneously
scend the individual utterance and convey text-level con- produce reduplications, false starts, and reformulations that
cepts. These discourse-level measures have been well studied Loban (1976) collectively termed mazes. Guo, Tomblin,
in children’s narrative productions (e.g., Heilmann, Miller, and Samelson, (2008) documented that children with SLI
Nockerts, & Dunaway, 2010; Petersen, Gillam, & Gillam, produce significantly more mazes than their typically devel-
2008) but have received limited attention with expository oping peers.
discourse. The literature to date on expository rubrics has Errors and omissions. Children with SLI have been
been limited to written exposition (e.g., Koutsoftas & Gray, shown to demonstrate significantly more grammatical errors
2012) and case study examples demonstrating how children when producing expository text when compared to their
increased the sophistication of their spoken and written ex- typically developing peers (Scott, 1995) as well as their
positions by repeatedly referring to the central themes or language-matched peers (Scott & Windsor, 2000). The SALT
points of the process they are describing and by deploying a software was used to generate four separate measures reflect-
variety of cohesive devices (Scott, 2010). ing children’s discourse errors: errors at the word level (e.g.,
The ESS rubric (see Appendix C) was designed to overgeneralizations and incorrect word choice), syntactic
provide a more in-depth analysis of children’s ability to errors at the utterance level (i.e., utterances that do not
clearly and comprehensively convey the key points of their make syntactic sense), omissions of bound morphemes that
explanation. Its format was modeled after the Narrative occur in obligatory contexts, and omissions of words that
Scoring Scheme (NSS), a rubric developed as a hybrid occur in obligatory contexts. The Errors and Omissions
method of documenting the overall quality of narrative measure was calculated by summing these four measures.
performance. To score the NSS, examiners identify specific
macrostructural features while employing subjective judg-
ment (Heilmann, Miller, Nockerts, & Dunaway, 2010). Transcription and Coding Agreement
Heilmann, Miller, and Nockerts (2010) documented that Twelve of the transcripts were randomly selected to
incorporating examiner judgment into this type of hybrid be transcribed and coded by a separate transcriber, and the
scoring system was more sensitive than discrete coding second set of transcripts was compared to the original set.
schemes that simply identified the presence of individual Percent agreement was calculated by dividing the total
macrostructural aspects of children’s narrative retells. For number of agreements by the sum of the total agreements
the ESS, eight of its 10 components were drawn from com- and disagreements. High levels of agreement were ob-
mon features of sports discussed in Worth (1990). To en- served: 97.8% for morphemes (18,465/18,890), 95.1% for
sure that these features also reflected what is expected for C-unit segmentation (1,328/1,396), and 95.6% for placement
explanations of games, the website Card Game Rules of mazes (778/814). Krippendorff’s alpha (Krippendorff,
(www.pagat.com) was consulted. 1980), which accounted for the degree of difference in ordi-
The transcribers coded each sample using the ESS nal data, was .91 for coding of CD and .81 for coding of
rubric to document how well the child conveyed each of the ESS.

282 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 45 • 277–290 • October 2014
Results measures, nonsignificant differences ( p ≥ .10) with small
effect sizes (h2 ≤ .02) were observed.
Properties of the Database
To test for age-related changes in language sample
measures, a series of bivariate correlation coefficients was Comparison to the Literature
calculated between the children’s age and their performance The performance of the children in the current study
on each of the expository measures. There was a small and was compared to previous reports in the literature that an-
nonsignificant correlation with age for most of the measures alyzed the expository discourse of typically developing chil-
(see Column 1 of Table 1). Significant age-related correla- dren who were similar in age to children from the present
tions with a small association (Cohen, 1988) were observed study (see Table 3). We first compared our data to three
for MLCU, relative clauses, NDW, WPM, ESS, and mazes. studies that also used an FGS protocol, but without the
To illustrate how the measures differed across age groups, graphic organizer (Nippold et al., 2005, 2008; Westerveld &
we summarized each measure across the four grades in Moran, 2011). In addition, we compared language measures
Columns 2–5 of Table 1. from our samples to expository interviews with children who
We next completed a series of one-way analysis of have chess knowledge (Nippold, 2009) and the retellings
variance (ANOVA) equations to determine if each of the of an expository video described in Scott and Windsor
language measures differed significantly due to the topic (2000). Although all of the children were typically develop-
selected (i.e., team sport, individual sport, or game). Of the ing, there were slight differences in ages between the stud-
12 measures, significant differences were observed for only ies. However, the differences were modest, and previous
three: NDW, F(2, 232) = 4.2, p = .017, h2 = .04; NTW, research has documented that expository measures show
F(2, 232) = 4.0, p = .019, h2 = .03; and TCU, F(2, 232) = 4.8, relatively small cross-sectional age-related growth during
p = .009, h2 = .04. Table 2 summarizes descriptive statistics the preadolescent years (e.g., Nippold et al., 2005). Mod-
broken down by topic for these three measures. We com- est age-related growth was further confirmed in the cross-
pleted a series of Scheffé post hoc analyses to determine sectional analyses completed in the current study. Because
where significant differences occurred across topics for each the biggest difference across these studies was the method
of the measures. For NDW, children’s values from the game used to elicit the expository samples, we predicted that any
samples were significantly lower than team sport ( p = .02); observed differences in measures were due to differences
no significant differences were observed between game and in the elicitation method. For these comparisons, the vari-
individual sport ( p = .11) and individual sport and team ables were limited to TCU, MLCU, and CD, which were
sport ( p = .98). For both NTW and TCU, measures from consistently included across the studies.
the game samples were significantly lower than individual As seen in Table 3, TCU, MLCU, and CD were con-
sport ( p = .02 and .01 for NTW and TCU, respectively); no siderably higher for the children in the current study when
significant differences were observed between game and compared to the three other studies that used an FGS proto-
team sport ( p = .30 and .35) and between team sport and in- col (Nippold et al., 2005, 2008; Westerveld & Moran, 2011).
dividual sport ( p = .14 and .06). For the other nine language In comparison to the present study, interviews of children

Table 1. Relationship between language measures and age and descriptive data (M and SD) for each measure, broken down by grade.

Grade
Language measure r with age 5th 6th 7th 9th

MLCU .16* 11.4 (1.9) 11.7 (1.6) 11.9 (1.7) 12.1 (2.0)
CD .01 1.7 (0.2) 1.7 (0.2) 1.7 (0.2) 1.7 (0.2)
Adverbials –.04 35.9% (15.9%) 34.4% (14.2%) 33.4% (15.3%) 34.5% (15.0%)
Nominals .03 13.6% (8.0%) 13.8% (7.9%) 13.7% (9.3%) 13.6% (6.9%)
Relatives .19** 12.8% (8.5%) 16.6% (11.3%) 16.9% (9.3%) 18.5% (11.1%)
NDW .12* 74.6 (7.4) 75.1 (7.2) 75.7 (6.1) 76.9 (7.3)
NTW .08 610.6 (279.1) 583.3 (238.6) 706.1 (404.2) 634.5 (214.8)
TCU .03 53.9 (23.5) 50.2 (19.5) 60.4 (34.3) 52.4 (16.0)
ESS .14* 32.7 (5.7) 32.5 (5.6) 34.2 (5.1) 34.6 (5.2)
WPM .22** 126.0 (27.6) 129.0 (19.6) 135.4 (23.7) 140.8 (27.0)
Mazes –.15** 10.2% (5.0%) 10.5% (4.4%) 8.5% (3.4%) 8.4% (4.2%)
Errors and omissions –.01 6.5 (4.3) 6.4 (5.2) 7.5 (4.5) 5.7 (4.7)

Note. MLCU = mean length of C-unit; CD = clausal density; adverbials = adverbial clauses as a percentage of C-units; nominals = nominal clauses
as a percentage of C-units; relatives = relative clauses as a percentage of C-units; NDW = number of different words; NTW = number of total words;
TCU = number of total C-units; WPM = words per minute; ESS = expository scoring scheme; mazes = percentage of maze words to total words;
errors and omissions = total number of word errors, utterance-level errors, and omissions of words and morphemes that occur in obligatory contexts.
*p < .05. **p < .01.

Heilmann & Malone: Properties of Expository Samples 283

Table 2. Descriptive statistics (M and SD) of measures for which topic had a significant effect.

Topic
Language measure Team sport (n = 151) Individual sport (n = 30) Game (n = 54)

NDW 76.0 (7.5) 76.2 (5.6) 72.9 (6.4)

NTW 624.6 (228.4) 738.2 (527.2) 555.3 (223.8)
TCU 52.5 (18.6) 64.6 (43.4) 48.1 (19.8)

Note. Results of Scheffé post hoc testing revealed that for NDW, game < team sport and for NTW and TCU, game < individual sport.

on how to play chess (Nippold, 2009) generated substan- structure. The final choice when completing a PCA is deter-
tially longer samples but similar MLCU and CD values. mining how many factors to include in the final model. If a
The present study generated considerably longer samples small number of factors were retained (e.g., a single-factor
than Scott and Windsor’s (2000) video retellings, but similar model), we could not determine if there were in fact distinct
MLCU and CD values. dimensions of language (i.e., everything would load on a
“general language” dimension) and we would not explain
much of the variability in our measures. If, on the other
Factor Analysis hand, we retain too many factors, the model would become
We next completed a factor analysis to discover if too watered down and would prohibit a parsimonious
there were in fact distinct dimensions of language being cap- interpretation of the factor structure. One approach is to
tured by the expository samples and to identify which lan- “eyeball” the data by completing multiple models (e.g., one-,
guage measures were associated with the same underlying two-, three-, and four-level models) and judging which is
construct. When completing a factor analysis, the variance the best fit. However, such approaches are prone to bias.
structure of the measures is examined in order to identify We chose to use a more empirical approach by including
variables that share a significant amount of variance. Factor only factors with eigenvalues greater than one.
analyses assist in identifying variables that are strongly in- The data were best explained by a four-factor model,
terrelated (i.e., have substantial covariance) while at the same which is summarized in Table 4. The strongest loadings for
time are distinct from other groups of variables (i.e., have Factor 1 were from MLCU, CD, and the three types of
limited covariance with other measures). See Tabachnick and subordinate clauses. Together, these variables explained
Fidell (2013) for an overview of factor analysis. 24% of the variability in language measures. For Factor 2,
The first decision to make when completing a factor the strongest loadings were observed for NTW and TCU,
analysis is whether it should be confirmatory (where the with additional strong loadings observed for WPM and
examiner tests how well variables adhere to a known factor ESS. Variables in Factor 2 uniquely explained 22% of the
structure) or exploratory (where the factor structure is un- variability in the measures. For Factor 3, strong loadings
known and is empirically derived through the analysis). Al- were observed for children’s use of mazes and errors and
though we had some initial ideas on which variables would omissions, which together explained 11% of the variability.
covary, there were limited data describing the factor struc- Finally, NDW and the use of relative clauses had a strong
ture of measures from expository language samples collected and unique loading onto Factor 4, which explained 10% of
from older students. Therefore, we chose to complete a prin- the variability. In addition, children’s use of relative clauses
cipal components analysis (PCA), which is one method of had a notable loading onto Factor 4.
completing an exploratory factor analysis. In the current
study, the 12 expository measures were analyzed using a
PCA with varimax rotation. The varimax rotation manipu- Discussion
lates the data to strengthen the loadings onto their respective The need for authentic language assessments for
factors, which affords a clearer observation of the factor older students motivated the creation of an expository

Table 3. Summary of measures (M and SD) collected from the present study and comparable studies in the literature.

Task Study n Age M (range) TCU MLCU CD

FGS (with outline) Present study 235 12;6 (10;7–15;9) 53.5 (23.7) 11.7 (1.8) 1.7 (0.2)
FGS (no outline) Nippold et al., 2005 20 11;4 (10;9–11;8) 35.3 (17.4) 9.3 (0.9) 1.5 (0.2)
Nippold et al., 2008 254 13;11 (13;1–15;5) 29.2 (17.2) 10.0 (2.1) 1.5 (0.2)
Westerveld & Moran, 2011 20 11;4 (11;0–11;11) 32.4 (15.9) 9.1 (1.3) 1.4 (0.1)
Chess interview Nippold, 2009 32 10;11 (7;3–15;4) 88.1 (56.8) 11.5 (2.3) 1.6 (0.2)
Video retell Scott & Windsor, 2000 20 11;6 (9;10–12;11) 29.4 (9.1) 11.4 (2.1) 1.8 (0.2)

Note. FGS = favorite game or sport protocol.

284 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 45 • 277–290 • October 2014
Table 4. Summary of data from the exploratory factor analysis.
topic only accounted for 2% to 4% of the variance in the
a b c d
measures. Examiners should use caution when collecting
Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4
samples describing games, because NDW, TCU, and NTW
MLCU .86 .15 –.16 .11 values may be underestimated. Given the small effect sizes,
CD .96 .09 .01 .05 we believe that these differences among the three topic
Adverbials .78 .15 .01 –.24 choices will have minimal impact on the interpretation of
Nominals .46 –.13 .05 .01 results within clinical protocols; further study of children
Relatives .50 .12 –.08 .52
NDW –.14 –.01 .03 .86 with LI will be required to determine language measure dis-
NTW .05 .93 .14 –.03 crepancies that constitute clinical significance.
TCU –.23 .89 .19 –.06 We do believe that the risk of a topic effect is out-
ESS .23 .60 –.03 .25 weighed by the benefits of allowing students flexibility to
WPM .12 .69 –.10 –.01
Mazes .03 –.13 .81 –.09 choose a meaningful topic. By choosing from among the
Errors and omissions –.07 .28 .75 .09 total range of games and sports, students are more likely
to identify one with which they are familiar and that they
Note. The explained variance estimates (Row 3) document the are motivated to discuss. In addition, when collecting multi-
amount of variability explained by each respective factor. The
loadings (Rows 4–15) document the correlation between each ple samples over time to monitor a student’s progress, an
measure and its respective factor. Boldface values indicate the SLP can allow a student to explain a wide variety of differ-
variables that were judged to have substantial loadings onto their ent games or sports, thereby avoiding artificial increases
respective factors. in measures due to an increased familiarity with explaining
a
Eigenvalue = 2.9; explained variance = 24.0%. bEigenvalue = 2.7; a particular game or sport.
explained variance = 22.2%. cEigenvalue = 1.3; explained variance =
11.0%. dEigenvalue = 1.2; explained variance = 9.7%.
Comparison to Previous Studies
database that can be used to compare the performance of Another goal was to compare our protocol to elicita-
individual clients to a large sample of typically developing tion procedures used in other studies of expository discourse.
speakers. We collected a large corpus of samples from typi- Because these comparisons relied on descriptive statistics
cally developing children using a protocol that we believed alone and there was no way to determine statistical signifi-
best reflected the demands of the curriculum for preteen cance, we estimated whether the differences across the studies
and teenage students. Having this database allowed us to appeared to have clinical significance. There were substantial
document the nature of expository discourse in typically differences in sample length (TCU) and utterance complexity
developing students and provides motivation for the further (MLCU and CD) when comparing the present study to the
testing of the use of expository LSA in assessing children three previous studies examining the FGS protocol. We at-
with a range of language impairments, including both SLI tributed the increased length and complexity in our study to
and NLI. the extra support and scaffolding provided by our elicitation
task. Allowing students to use a planning sheet to organize
and support their verbal productions likely prompted them
Age-Related Growth to include more detail in their productions. The planning
Half of the measures significantly increased (MLCU, process may also have reduced the processing load required
relative clauses, NDW, WPM, ESS, and mazes) with chil- for organization of their productions, thus freeing up cogni-
dren’s advancing age (albeit with a small effect), whereas tive resources to facilitate the production of longer and more
the rest demonstrated nonsignificant age-related effects. It complex samples.
may seem somewhat surprising that there weren’t greater To put the comparisons in a broader perspective, we
age-related changes because the students covered a fairly next compared the results from our study to additional
wide range (from 5th through 9th grades). Yet our findings studies of expository discourse that did not use the FGS
were consistent with the slow age-related growth documented protocol. When comparing measures from the present study
in previous studies of children’s expository discourse (e.g., to those that were elicited through interviews about chess
Nippold et al., 2005; Westerveld & Moran, 2011). (Nippold, 2009) and through retellings of a science video
(Scott & Windsor, 2000), we observed similar MLCU and
CD values. The extra support provided by the questioning
Effect of Expository Topic of the interviewers and the children’s strong content knowl-
To our knowledge, we completed the first analyses of edge in Nippold (2009) may explain why their measures of
topic effects for an expository task. The results of our anal- utterance complexity were comparable to the present study.
yses revealed that there were minimal differences in lan- The retell context in Scott and Windsor may have also
guage measures across the topics of team sports, individual provided additional scaffolding for the children, requiring
sports, and games. Significant differences were observed fewer cognitive resources for discourse planning and facili-
only for NDW and for the two measures of sample length tating greater ability to generate more complex syntax. A
(i.e., TCU and NTW). Although there were statistically similar advantage for narrative retells over self-generated
significant differences across topics for these measures, narratives was documented by Merritt and Liles (1989).

Heilmann & Malone: Properties of Expository Samples 285

 Although no definitive conclusions could be reached the WPM also loaded onto this factor, because it is also a
regarding the differences in measures across studies, the measure of general productivity; when children have the
data suggest that the elicitation methods did indeed have an capacity to provide longer explanations, they tend to for-
effect on the expository measures. This result was consistent mulate them efficiently. Although we expected the ESS to
with previous studies documenting the significant effect of form its own distinct language dimension, we can account
elicitation procedures on narrative measures (Gummersall for its association with Factor 2. For most of the items on
& Strong, 1999; Westerveld & Heilmann, 2012). Our pur- the ESS, children received a higher score if they provided
pose in comparing elicitation contexts was not to identify greater detail in their productions. When children produced
one as superior to the others, but rather to acknowledge the samples that were lengthy (i.e., a large number of C-units
potential effects of elicitation procedures and to reiterate and words) and fluent (i.e., a high number of WPM), they
the importance of consistently following the same protocol were likely as well to produce well-formed and well-organized
that was used to compile the comparison samples. To con- explanations. Although these four measures have strong co-
firm the influence of different elicitation procedures on stu- variance, we suggest that clinicians routinely examine the
dents’ performance, a future study would need to make child’s ESS scores in addition to the productivity measures.
comparisons using the same participants. On its face, the ESS provides the most descriptive account
of a child’s overall ability to produce an expository sample.
In completing the ESS rubric for a given sample, an SLP
Factor Analysis must critically evaluate its content and organization, fea-
The factor analysis revealed that measures from expos- tures that are closely aligned with curricular expectations.
itory LSA successfully captured multiple dimensions of Factor 3 included mazes and errors and omissions,
oral language. The current study has extended the work of which together reflected children’s discourse difficulties.
Tomblin and Zhang (2006) and Westerveld and Moran Children’s use of mazes has previously been found to have
(2011) to provide empirical evidence for the presence of mul- limited developmental sensitivity, yet provides a rich de-
tiple language dimensions. The interpretation of the factors scription of children’s discourse difficulties (Leadholm &
was relatively straightforward. Factor 1 revealed that MLCU, Miller, 1992). This factor analysis confirms that children’s
CD, and the three clause types (adverbials, nominals, and rel- use of mazes is part of a distinct dimension of language
atives) were documenting the same underlying construct, one that could be used to describe a child’s profile. Given the
likely related to syntactic complexity. This result confirmed covariance between errors and omissions and mazes, this
that MLCU continues to provide important and unique in- result provides further documentation that children’s use
formation about older students’ oral language skills. Its close of mazes is indicative of discourse production difficulties.
and unique relationship with CD suggests that it is primarily Although the participants in this study did not have many
capturing the advancing use of complex syntax in expository errors or omissions in their samples, this measure still helped
discourse of preteen and teenage students. to explain a portion of the variance and can be used to help
Given the covariance among MLCU, CD, and the describe a child’s expository profile. We anticipate that the
three clause types, it may be tempting to save the extra time Errors and Omissions measure will be even more instru-
required to code these measures of complex syntax and sim- mental in describing the expository skills of students with LI
ply analyze MLCU. Although MLCU appears to provide (Scott & Windsor, 2000).
an overall estimate of children’s complex syntax use, it In the final factor, children’s lexical diversity was
doesn’t provide a detailed description of the types of clauses predominantly explained by NDW, which was calculated
the child is using. By coding for CD and each of the clause with a consistent transcript cut (i.e., the first 150 words in
types, a clinician can develop a profile detailed enough to the transcript). In a separate analysis, we calculated NDW
determine if a student has met the Language Standards of using each child’s entire transcript. In that factor analysis,
the Common Core Standards (National Governors Associ- which was limited to a three-factor solution, NDW loaded
ation, 2010), which as early as 6th grade call on students to onto Factor 1. Therefore, if clinicians want to use NDW
“vary sentence patterns for meaning, reader/listener inter- as a distinct measure of lexical diversity, they will need to
est, and style” in both speaking and writing (p. 52). By control for sample length.
Grades 9–10, students are expected to “demonstrate com- Children’s use of relative clauses also had a notable
mand of . . . various types of . . . clauses (independent, depen- loading onto Factor 4 in addition to its strong loading on
dent; noun, relative, adverbial) to convey specific meanings Factor 1. This reflects the dual function of relative clauses.
and add variety and interest to writing or presentations” They act not only to increase the syntactic complexity of
(p. 54). Armed with information about a student’s CD and an utterance; their adjectival status also allows speakers to
clause variety, a clinician can write treatment objectives and embed additional descriptive information into a post-noun
implement intervention programs that target complex syntax phrase. To do so, speakers must coordinate the “lexicon-
(Nippold, 2014). syntax interface” (Berman & Nir, 2010). Examination of
Factor 2 had a wide variety of measures that together children’s relative clause use thus affords an additional op-
appeared to be documenting expository content. Two mea- portunity to describe children’s lexical skills.
sures of sample length (NTW and TCU) had the strongest Together, these data from the factor analysis confirmed
loadings onto the second factor. It is not surprising that that children must effectively integrate multiple aspects of

286 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 45 • 277–290 • October 2014
the language system to successfully engage in expository dis- their typically developing peers, we anticipate that there will
course. Therefore, clinicians and teachers wishing to improve indeed be differences in the performance of children with
a student’s expository language skills should take a compre- LI when compared to the database. Further research will
hensive view of expository discourse and address multiple provide a better understanding of the value of using a data-
dimensions during instruction. Because these data were com- base to assist with clinical decision making when analyzing
piled on typically developing students, they provide strong children’s expository discourse. This future work will help to
empirical support for SLPs consulting with classroom determine which measures are most effective in documenting
teachers to help facilitate improved expository discourse in the presence of LI, what levels of performance constitute
their classrooms. Although data describing children with clinical significance, and which measures are most sensitive
LI would be required to test whether these language dimen- for documenting the profiles of children with LI. Having
sions are maintained, the present study provides emerging data from children with LI may also modify the composi-
evidence for the expository language structure that could be tion of the database itself; because children with LI were
used in treatment planning for children with LI. Further re- not included in the database, there is a chance that the per-
search will determine the nature of linguistic profiles in chil- formance of students with LI may be slightly underestimated
dren with LI, which can be used to describe a student’s (see McFadden, 1996). Until those data are available, SLPs
relative strengths and weaknesses and lead to planning indi- comparing their clients to the performance of children in
vidualized treatments. These types of descriptive data are this expository database should interpret their findings with
urgently needed for older students. SLPs have a large num- caution.
ber of validated instruments that are effective at making a
differential diagnosis, but require a greater number of valid
and sensitive descriptive assessments to plan for treatments Acknowledgments
directly related to the curriculum. Special thanks to Jon Miller, Ann Nockerts, Joyelle DiVall-
Rayan, and Karen Andriacchi of SALT Software, LLC, for their
assistance with this project, including provision of transcription
Clinical Implications and Future Directions services. Neither author has a financial interest in SALT Software,
For clinicians working with junior high or senior high LLC. Additional thanks go to Mary-Beth Rolland and Elizabeth
school students, descriptive assessments related to the curric- Schoonveld of the Madison (Wisconsin) Metropolitan School District.
ulum are some of the most powerful tools in their arsenal. We gratefully acknowledge the speech-language pathologists and
students who generously contributed the samples described in this
SLPs are continually required to demonstrate how their
study; they are affiliated with the following Wisconsin public school
services contribute to their students’ academic success. Rec- districts: Brown Deer, Fox Point-Bayside, Madison, Shorewood,
ognizing the power of expository discourse, several investi- Waukesha, Wauwatosa, and West Allis-West Milwaukee.
gators have called for the creation of a large database of
samples from typical speakers (Nippold et al., 2007; Scott,
2010). Our research team answered the call for a large data- References
base by first developing an elicitation protocol that was
American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2004). Preferred
consistent with academic expectations and could be used
practice patterns for the profession of speech-language pathol-
to document performance on various requirements in the ogy. Available from www.asha.org/policy
Common Core State Standards (National Governor’s Asso- Battle, D. (2011). Communication disorders in multicultural and
ciation, 2010). We gave thorough consideration to creating international populations (4th ed.). St. Louis, MO: Mosby.
a protocol that could be administered quickly and consis- Berman, R., & Nir, B. (2010). The language of expository discourse
tently by multiple clinicians and that would encourage chil- across adolescence. In M. Nippold & C. Scott (Eds.), Expository
dren to engage in high-level expository discourse. Having discourse in children, adolescents, and adults (pp. 99–121).
such a standardized protocol facilitated the creation of the New York, NY: Psychology Press.
database described in this manuscript. Berman, R., & Verhoeven, L. (2002). Cross-linguistic perspectives
on the development of text-production abilities: Speech and
The ultimate goal of creating this large database was
writing. Written Language and Literacy, 5, 1–43.
to strengthen required descriptive assessments by allowing Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
SLPs to compare their individual clients to a large group sciences (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
of typically developing students. In our previous work, we Damico, J., Secord, W., & Wiig, E. (1992). Descriptive language
have demonstrated that databases of typically developing assessment at school: Characteristics and design. In W. Secord
speakers can be effective when used to identify children (Ed.), Best practices in school speech-language pathology
with SLI (Heilmann, Miller, & Nockerts, 2010). The cur- (pp. 1–8). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.
rent study provides a critical first step toward fully vali- Ensminger, M., Forrest, C., Riley, A., Kang, M., Green, B.,
dated implementation of expository analysis. Starfield, B., & Ryan, S. (2000). The validity of measures of
socioeconomic status in adolescents. Journal of Adolescent
The next step in this line of research is to collect and Research, 15, 392–419.
analyze language samples from children with LI using the Evans, J. L., & Craig, H. K. (1992). Language sample collection
same FGS protocol. Given that Nippold et al. (2008) and and analysis: Interview compared to freeplay assessment con-
Scott and Windsor (2000) have documented differences in texts. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 35,
expository language measures between children with LI and 343–353.

Heilmann & Malone: Properties of Expository Samples 287

Gummersall, D. M., & Strong, C. J. (1999). Assessment of complex Nippold, M. A. (2009). School-age children talk about chess: Does
sentence production in a narrative context. Language, Speech, knowledge drive syntactic complexity? Journal of Speech, Lan-
and Hearing Services in Schools, 30, 152–164. guage, and Hearing Research, 52, 856–871.
Guo, L., Tomblin, J. B., & Samelson, V. (2008). Speech disruptions Nippold, M. (2014). Language sampling with adolescents: Implica-
in the narratives of English-speaking children with specific lan- tions for intervention (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Plural.
guage impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Nippold, M. A., Hesketh, L. J., Duthie, J. K., & Mansfield, T. C.
Research, 51, 722–738. (2005). Conversational versus expository discourse: A study
Halliday, M., & Hasan, R. (1976). Cohesion in English. London, of syntactic development in children, adolescents, and adults.
England: Longman. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48,
Heilmann, J., Miller, J., & Nockerts, A. (2010). Using language 1048–1064.
sample databases. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Nippold, M., Mansfield, T., & Billow, J. (2007). Peer conflict ex-
Schools, 41, 84–95. planations in children, adolescents, and adults: Examining the
Heilmann, J., Miller, J. F., Nockerts, A., & Dunaway, C. (2010). development of complex syntax. American Journal of Speech-
Properties of the narrative scoring scheme using narrative re- Language Pathology, 16, 179–188.
tells in young school-age children. American Journal of Speech- Nippold, M., Mansfield, T., Billow, J., & Tomblin, J. B. (2008).
Language Pathology, 19, 154–166. Expository discourse in adolescents with language impairments:
Hux, K., Morris-Friehe, M., & Sanger, D. (1993). Language sam- Examining syntactic development. American Journal of Speech-
pling practices: A survey of nine states. Language, Speech, and Language Pathology, 17, 356–366.
Hearing Services in Schools, 24, 84–91. Paul, R., & Norbury, C. (2012). Language disorders from infancy
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. through adolescence. St. Louis, MO: Elsevier.
Pub. L. No. 108446. § 118 Stat. 2647 (2004) Petersen, D., Gillam, S., & Gillam, R. (2008). Emerging procedures
Koutsoftas, A. D., & Gray, S. (2012). Comparison of narrative in narrative assessment: The Index of Narrative Complexity.
and expository writing in students with and without language- Topics in Language Disorders, 28, 115–130.
learning disabilities. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Scarborough, H. (2009). Connecting early language and literacy
Schools, 43, 395–409. to later reading (dis)abilities: Evidence, theory, and practice.
Krippendorff, K. (1980). Content analysis: An introduction to its In F. Fletcher-Campbell, J. Soler, & G. Reid (Eds.), Ap-
methodology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. proaching difficulties in literacy development: Assessment,
Leadholm, B. J., & Miller, J. F. (1992). Language Sample Analysis: pedagogy, and programmes (pp. 23–39). Thousand Oaks,
The Wisconsin guide. Madison: Wisconsin Department of CA: Sage.
Instruction. Schneider, P., & Dubé, R. V. (2005). Story presentation effects on
Leonard, L. B. (2014). Children with specific language impairment children’s retell content. American Journal of Speech-Language
(2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Pathology, 14, 52–60.
Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through Scott, C. (1988). Producing complex sentences. Topics in Language
grade twelve. Champaign, IL: National Council of Teachers of Disorders, 8, 44–62.
English. Scott, C. (1995). Syntax for school-age children: A discourse per-
Malone, T., Heilmann, J., Miller, J., DiVall-Rayan, J., & Rollan, M. spective. In M. Fey & J. Windsor (Eds.), Language learning
(2010, November). Reaching the tweeners: Extending two disabilities in school-age children and adolescents: Some under-
SALT databases to Grades 5–6. Paper presented at the annual lying principles and applications (pp. 49–95). San Diego, CA:
meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, College Hill Press.
Philadelphia, PA. Scott, C. (2010). Assessing expository texts produced by school-
Malone, T., Miller, J., Andriacchi, K., Heilmann, J., Nockerts, A., age children and adolescents. In M. A. Nippold & C. M. Scott
& Schoonveld, L. (2008, November). Let me explain: Teenage (Eds.), Expository discourse in children, adolescents, and adults:
expository language samples. Paper presented at the annual Development and disorders (pp. 191–214). New York, NY:
meeting of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association, Psychology Press.
Chicago, IL. Scott, C., & Stokes, S. (1995). Measures of syntax in school-age
McCauley, R. (2001). Assessment of language disorders in children. children and adolescents. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. in Schools, 26, 309–319.
McCauley, R., & Swisher, L. (1984). Use and misuse of norm- Scott, C., & Windsor, J. (2000). General language performance
referenced tests in clinical assessment: A hypothetical case. measures in spoken and written narrative and expository
Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 49, 338–348. discourse of school-age children with language impairment.
McFadden, T. U. (1996). Creating language impairments in typically Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 324–339.
achieving children: The pitfalls of “normal” normative sampling. Stothard, S. E., Snowling, M. J., Bishop, D. M., Chipchase, B. B.,
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 27, 3–9. & Kaplan, C. A. (1998). Language-impaired preschoolers: A
Merritt, D. D., & Liles, B. Z. (1989). Narrative analysis: Clinical follow-up into adolescence. Journal of Speech, Language, and
applications of story generation and story retelling. Journal of Hearing Research, 41, 407–418.
Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 438. Strong, C., & Shaver, J. (1991). Stability of cohesion in the spo-
Miller, J. F., & Iglesias, A. (2012). Systematic Analysis of Language ken narratives of language-impaired and normally developing
Transcripts. Middleton, WI: SALT. school-age children. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 34,
National Governors Association Center for Best Practices. (2010). 95–111.
Common Core Standards for English Language Arts & Literacy Sun, L., & Nippold, M. A. (2012). Narrative writing in children and
in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects. adolescents: Examining the literate lexicon. Language, Speech,
Washington, DC: National Governors Association Center for and Hearing Services in Schools, 43, 2–13.
Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. http:// Tabachnick, B., & Fidell, L. (2013). Using multivariate statistics
www.corestandards.org (6th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

288 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 45 • 277–290 • October 2014
Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2006). The dimensionality of language Westerveld, M. F., & Heilmann, J. J. (2012). The effects of geo-
ability in school-age children. Journal of Speech, Language, and graphic location and picture support on children’s story retell-
Hearing Research, 49, 1193–1208. ing performance. Asia Pacific Journal of Speech, Language,
Verhoeven, L., Aparici, M., Cahana-Amitay, D., van Hell, J., Kriz, and Hearing, 15, 129–143.
S., & Viguié-Simon, A. (2002). Clause packaging in writing Westerveld, M., & Moran, C. (2011). Expository language skills
and speech: A cross-linguistic developmental analysis. Written of young school-age children. Language, Speech, and Hearing
Language and Literacy, 5, 135–162. Services in Schools, 42, 182–193.
Watkins, R., Kelly, D., Harbers, H., & Hollis, W. (1995). Measur- Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design
ing children’s lexical diversity: Differentiating typical and (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
language-impaired learners. Journal of Speech and Hearing Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, Student Services/
Research, 38, 1349–1355. Prevention and Wellness Team. (2010). Wisconsin
Westerveld, M. F., & Gillon, G. T. (2010). Oral narrative context ef- Standards for Physical Education. Retrieved from www.
fects on poor readers’ spoken language performance: Story wellnessandpreventionoffice.org/WI_Standards_for_PE-1.pdf
retelling, story generation, and personal narratives. Interna- Worth, S. (Ed.). (1990). Rules of the game. New York, NY:
tional Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 12, 132–141. St. Martin’s Press.

Appendix A
Expository Planning Sheet

Component What’s covered Notes

Object What you have to do to win

Preparations Playing area and setup
Equipment and materials
What players do to get ready
Start How the contest begins, including who goes first
Course of play What happens during a team or player’s turn, including any special plays,
positions, or roles, both offensive and defensive
Rules Major rules, including penalties for violations
Scoring Different ways to score, including point values
Duration How long the contest lasts, including how it ends and tie-breaking procedures
Strategies What smart players do to win, both offensively and defensively

Appendix B
Examiner Script for Eliciting Expository Samples

I’m interested in finding out how well you do at giving explanations. I’m going to make a recording so I can remember
what you say. If you want, you can listen to the recording when we’re finished.
I want you to imagine that I am a student about your age. I’m visiting the United States from another country and I want
to learn as much as I can about life in the U.S. You can help me by explaining how to play your favorite sport or game. You
have lots of choices. For example, you could pick a sport, such as basketball or tennis. You could pick a board game, such
as Monopoly or chess. Or you could pick a card game, such as poker or rummy. What sport or game do you want to pick?
The student offers an appropriate choice. If a choice is not offered or is inappropriate (such as a video game), reread
the examples given above and/or add more examples to aid the student in making an appropriate choice. If the student is still
having difficulty making a selection, suggest picking a game or sport recently played in the student’s physical education class.
Assume that in my country we don’t play [name of sport or game]. I’d like you to explain everything I would need to
know to so I could learn to play. I’ll expect you to talk for at least five minutes. To help you organize your thoughts, here’s a
list of topics I’d like you to talk about [hand the student a copy of the planning sheet]. Please take the next few minutes to
plan your explanation by taking notes in the blank spaces [indicate empty column on the right]. But don’t waste time writing
sentences. Just write some key words to remind you of what you want to say. You can talk about the topics in the order they
are listed, or else you can number the topics any way you wish. If you don’t want to take notes, you can use the backside of
the list to draw a diagram or make a graphic organizer. Do you have any questions?
If student expresses difficulty with reading any portion of the checklist, read the unclear portions aloud. If the student has
difficulty with understand the vocabulary, give an example from a sport or game different from the one the student has chosen.
Go ahead and start planning.
Allow enough time for student to write something for each topic on the checklist or to complete a diagram or graphic
organizer. If the student stops writing or drawing before planning is finished, prompt with, “Please do some planning for [topic
name(s)].”
I’m ready to turn on the recorder. You will be doing all the talking. I’m going to listen to what you have to say. Take as
much time as you need to give a complete explanation. Remember, I expect you to talk for at least five minutes.
Turn on recording device and have the student begin speaking. After the student has finished speaking from his or her
planning sheet, turn off recording device. If the student finishes speaking before five minutes has elapsed, prompt with, “Is
there anything else you can tell me?” Review the recording for quality before releasing the student.

Heilmann & Malone: Properties of Expository Samples 289

Appendix C
Expository Scoring Scheme Rubric

Characteristic Proficient Emerging Minimal/Immature

Object Full description of the main objective Mention of the main objective Mention of winner but no or limited
description how that is determined
OR
Description of another aspect of the
contest, such as strategy or scoring
Preparations 1) Playing area 1) Playing area 1) Playing area
Labels place and provides details Labels place and provides limited Labels place but no details about
about shape & layout details about shape & layout shape & layout
AND/OR OR OR
2) Equipment 2) Equipment 2) Equipment
Labels items and provides detailed Labels items with limited description Labels items with no description
description, including function
AND/OR OR OR
3) Player preparations 3) Player preparations 3) Player preparations
Provides detailed description Provides some description Provides limited description
Start Describes initial situation and how Describes initial situation or how play Limited description of the initial situation
play begins begins, but not both or how play begins
Course of Detailed description of: Some description of: Limited description of:
play A unit of play A unit of play A unit of play
AND/OR OR OR
Major roles Major roles Major roles
AND/OR OR OR
Major plays Major plays Major plays
Rules Clear statement of major rules and, Mentions major rules and, when Minimal or no mention of major rules or
when applicable, consequences applicable, consequences for consequences for violations
for violations violations but without full detail
Scoring Full description of ways to score and Incomplete description of ways to Limited description of ways to score or
point values score and point values point values
Duration Clear description of: Some description of: Limited description of:
How long the contest lasts, including, How long the contests lasts How long the contests lasts
when applicable, the units in which
duration is measured
AND/OR OR OR
How the contest ends How the contest ends How the contest ends
AND/OR OR OR
Tie breaking procedures Tie breaking procedures Tie breaking procedures
Strategy Full description of some ways to win Mention of some ways to win the Vague or incomplete mention of some
the contest that are not required by contest that are not required by ways to win the contest that are not
the rules but are what competent the rules but are what competent required by the rules but are what
players do players do, competent players do
Terminology Terms of art are clearly defined Some terms of art defined, but not Terms of art introduced but not further
whenever introduced consistently or clearly defined
Cohesion Topics follow a logical order Topics follow a logical order Little discernable order to topics;
AND OR Much jumping between topics;
Topics are completely covered before Topics are completely covered AND
moving on to another; before moving on to another
AND OR Abrupt transitions between topics
Smooth transitions between topics Smooth transitions between topics.

Scoring: Each characteristic receives a scaled score 0–5. Proficient characteristics=5, Emerging=3, Minimal/Immature=1. Scores in between
(e.g., 2, 4) are undefined, use judgment. Significant factual errors reduce the score for that topic. Scores of 0, NA are defined below. A com-
posite is scored by adding the total of the characteristic scores. Highest score=50.
A score of 0 is given for student errors (e.g., not covering topic, explaining a different game or sport, not completing/refusing task, student
unintelligibility, abandoned utterances).
A score of NA (nonapplicable) is given for mechanical/examiner/operator errors (e.g., interference from background noise, issues with
recording (cut-offs, interruptions), examiner quitting before student does, examiner not following protocol, examiner asking overly specific or
leading questions rather than open-ended questions or prompts).

290 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 45 • 277–290 • October 2014
Copyright of Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools is the property of American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.