Agnieszka Felczak

Ashley Beyer
Caitlin Maag
Lab Report 5
Introduction
We assessed a 26 month old female child, named Alex. We analyzed her word and
sentence production, while assessing her language skills. We analyzed the words the child
produced and how she used them. A checklist was used to record the words the child
produced, the word forms she uses in her speech, and the word endings she uses. Rating
scales were used to assess how frequently the child used words and word endings in
specific ways. There was also an open ended question where the childs longest sentences
were recorded. Lastly, a multiple choice assessment was used to determine the complexity
of the phrases the child uses. While assessing the child to evaluate her language skills, we
looked for the childs strengths and weaknesses in her language production. Our goal was to
determine recommendations for the childs learning: particularly what kinds of activities might
further her learning in these areas of language. We would like to determine if the child
should be recommended to a child study team, which could lead to intervention.
Data Summary
The child produced 313 out of the listed 680 words. She was in the 30-35th percentile. The
child was able to use 6 out of the 25 possible word forms, which put her in the 40th
percentile. She was also able to produce 6 out of the 45 possible word endings. We also
found that the child was able to combine words, which 95.7% of other children her age can
do. Of the childs three sentence constructions, the longest had 5 morphemes, the second 3,
and the third also 3. The median score for these constructions was 3.7. This put her at the
25-30th percentile. The child uses the more complex sentence structure 8 out of 37 times,
putting her at the 35-40th percentile.
How Children Used Words
Used (Yes)

Not Used (No)

Percentage of
affirmative answers
at this childs age

Past

82.0

Future

85.0

Absent Object
(Production)

93.0

Absent Object
(Comprehension)

98.0

Absent Owner

97.0

Not Used (No)

Percentage of
Affirmative answers

Word Endings
Used (Yes)

Agnieszka Felczak
Ashley Beyer
Caitlin Maag
at this childs age
Plural (-s)

78.0

Possessive (-s)

79.0

Progressive (-ing)
Past tense (ed)

X
X

64.0
48.0

Interpretation.
First, the child was in the 30-35th percentile for word production. This means that her scores
were higher than only 29-34% of her peers and that 65-70% of her peers scored higher on
the assessment than she did. Thus, we are somewhat concerned with the number of words
she can produce. The child struggled particularly with: connecting words, quantifiers/articles,
pronouns, words about time and helping verbs. Also, the child appeared to produce a limited
amount of animal names, places to go, and foods. Another area with low production was the
people category. The child excelled in her knowledge of body parts, which meets the CDCs
milestone expectations for her age. One concerning piece of data we found was the childs
usage of words when the owner was absent. 97% of children her age are able to identify the
absent owner to whom objects belong; however the child we assessed was not able to do
so. The other ways in which the child used the language were not concerning because, like
most of her peers, she produced words in those situations. In terms of word endings, we
noticed that the child rarely produced the progressive (ing) ending, which 64% of children
her age produce. This is much less concerning than the Absent Owner, but it is still
something that should be followed up. We were not concerned with the other word endings
since the child produced them. We were not particularly concerned with the childs sentence
production and morpheme usage, because the CDC milestones state that children her age
usually use 2-4 word sentences at this age. However, since she is in the 25-30th percentile
meaning that 70-75% of her peers scored higher than her, we would recommend keeping an
eye on this skill in the future.

Recommendation
Based on the data we gathered from our assessments, we think it would be beneficial to
follow up with a few specific language skills of the child. Wed recommend focusing on
identification of objects belonging to an absent owner, as this appeared to be a weakness of
the child. This could be supported in everyday conversations with the child by mentioning
objects that belong to specific people and talking about them. An emphasis on ownership
and reflexive pronouns would support the development of this skill. Additionally, talking
about known caregivers/peers who are absent may also support this understanding of the
Absent Owner. Games and activities could be devised to support the childs vocabulary
needs. For example, talking about food at the grocery store can support the development of
food words, so a grocery store could be set up in Pretend Play to support this skill
development in the classroom. Overtime, we would suggest checking the childs progress in

Agnieszka Felczak
Ashley Beyer
Caitlin Maag
her sentence construction even though she meets the CDCs milestones, because of her
lower percentile score. Since we are not particularly concerned with the child, we would not
recommend referral to a child study team at this moment. However, if the child does not
continue to make progress, we would like to refer her later since she is in the lower
percentile for her age and a significant portion of her peers are faring better than she is.

Reflection
One thing we learned from this assessment was how to compare one childs language skills
and sentence structure to a broad range of children. This allowed us to assess whether or
not certain areas of this childs language skills were of concern or not. Without these
comparisons we would have had a very difficult time determining where this child was
developmentally in terms of language and sentence structure. To complete this assignment
each person in our group individually completed the Child Report Form before meeting in
person. Once we met in person we compared answers and fixed any problems with any data
or numbers that were collected. This allowed us to work from a google doc to put all of the
information into a lab report form.

Agnieszka Felczak
Ashley Beyer
Caitlin Maag

Agnieszka Felczak