Heilmann, 2019

LSHSS
Research Article
Properties of Spoken Persuasive

Language Samples From Typically
Developing Adolescents
John Heilmann,a Thomas O. Malone,b and Marleen F. Westerveldc
Purpose: Persuasive communication skills are vital for language were summarized and broken down by grade.
achieving success in school, at work, and in social We completed a factor analysis that documented three
relationships. To facilitate assessment of persuasive latent variables (syntax, discourse difficulties, and content).
discourse, we developed a clinically feasible persuasive To test the validity of the persuasive measures, a subset
speaking protocol and used it to compile a database of of the participants completed an additional battery of
language samples. This database allowed us to describe assessments, which revealed weak to moderate relationships
the properties of adolescents’ persuasive speaking between the persuasive measures, general language ability,
skills. and working memory. There was no significant relationship
Method: We collected spoken language samples from between the persuasive language measures and an
179 typically developing students in Grades 8–12, recruited assessment of personality.
from the United States and Australia. Participants were Conclusion: Our persuasive language sampling protocol
asked to persuade an authority figure to make a change in facilitated the collection of valid language performance
a rule or policy. data. The summary data can be used as benchmarks for
Results: Language performance data reflecting both clinical evaluations of adolescents suspected of having
microstructural and macrostructural properties of spoken language difficulties.
I
n her seminal work on adolescent language develop- and analyze the persuasive skills of typically developing
ment, Nippold (2007) defined persuasion as “the use adolescents (Nippold, 2014). Considering the value of
of argumentation to convince another person to appraising language skills in a functional context, we
perform an act or accept the point of view desired by the aimed to develop a clinically feasible protocol to elicit a
persuader” (Nippold, 2007, p. 305). Persuasive discourse representative sample of adolescents’ persuasive discourse.
is a demanding task requiring logical thinking and In addition, we aimed to use that protocol to establish
perspective-taking, with many typically developing adoles- benchmark data based on a sample of typically developing
cents lacking competence with fundamental persuasive students.
strategies (e.g., Felton & Kuhn, 2001). Persuasive proficiency
is vital as competence at persuasion is necessary for
success at academics, work, and social relationships Persuasion in the Curriculum
(Nippold, 2007). Despite the importance of being persuasive, In the United States, the Common Core State Stan-
relatively few studies have investigated how to best elicit dards (CCSS) provide a description and sequence of the
expected competencies that will allow public school students
to successfully pursue postsecondary education or a career
a
Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, University of (National Governors Association, 2010). Currently, the
Wisconsin–Milwaukee CCSS have been adopted in 42 of the 50 states, plus the
b
Retired Speech-Language Pathologist, formerly with the School District of Columbia (CCSS Initiative, 2019). The CCSS
District of Brown Deer, WI
c for English Language Arts (ELA) treat persuasion as a dis-
School of Allied Health Sciences, Menzies Health Institute
tinctive type of discourse, separate in its aims and structure
Queensland, Griffith University, Southport, Queensland, Australia
from discussion, narration, and exposition. Because the
Correspondence to John Heilmann: heilmanj@uwm.edu
Editor-in-Chief: Holly L. Storkel
Disclosure: The third author has a financial relationship with SALT Software,
Received June 5, 2019
LLC. However, SALT Software, LLC, did not participate in the design, execution,
Revision received September 28, 2019 or analysis/interpretation of the project/project data nor did it review the article
Accepted November 23, 2019 before submission. The remaining authors have declared that no competing interests
https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-19-00078 existed at the time of publication.
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 51 • 441–456 • April 2020 • Copyright © 2020 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association 441
Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Proquest on 08/09/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions
CCSS use an integrated model of literacy, standards for independent/community living (Wehmeyer & Schwartz,
persuasion can be found across communication modalities 1997). To determine the need for and the scope of treat-
(i.e., speaking, listening, reading, and writing). For example, ment of a student’s persuasive discourse, SLPs must un-
according to the ninth- and 10th-grade speaking stan- dertake a valid and authentic assessment.
dards, students are expected to contrast points of agreement
and disagreement and justify their own views on an issue
(CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.SL.9–10.1.D). The 11th- and Barriers to Assessing Persuasive Language
12th-grade reading standards state that students should be Analysis of spoken discourse is traditionally com-
able to analyze the arguments presented in seminal U.S. pleted using language sample analysis (LSA), where an
texts (e.g., The Federalist Papers; CCSS.ELA-LITERACY. examiner collects a sample of the child’s language used in
S.11–12.9.B), whereas the 11th- and 12th-grade science a meaningful context and then completes a thorough anal-
standards require students to evaluate the results of scien- ysis to gauge linguistic strengths and weaknesses. Nippold
tific texts, then corroborate or challenge the author’s con- (2014) provided a summary of the literature supporting the
clusions (CCSS.ELA-LITERACY.RST.11–12.8). The use of LSA as a valid assessment for adolescents. However,
11th- and 12th-grade writing standards state that students a recent nationwide survey of school-based SLPs in the
are expected to take their audience’s perspective to develop United States found that less than half of SLPs serving middle
both claims and counterclaims in written arguments (CCSS. and high school students used any type of LSA over the
ELA-LITERACY.W.11–12.1). course of an entire school year, even though most SLPs held
Persuasive standards are not exclusive to the United a favorable view of language sampling (Pavelko et al., 2016).
States. Australia has implemented a national K–12 curricu- Even more alarming was the finding that SLPs working
lum that outlines the expected academic competencies, with middle school and/or high school students were the
including those for persuasive discourse (Australian Curric- least likely group to use LSA. Those who did collect samples
ulum, Assessment and Reporting Authority, 2014). For relied principally on conversation and picture description
example, in Grade 8, students are expected to “create to elicit them; such tasks, as Pavelko et al. (2016) point out,
imaginative, informative and persuasive texts that raise may not be age-appropriate for adolescents. Elicitation
issues, report events and advance opinions, using deliberate using a persuasive task, if done at all, was not frequent
language and textual choices.” In Level 4 of the senior sec- enough to be reported. Across all SLPs, the most cited rea-
ondary standards (roughly equivalent to Grade 12 in the son for not using LSA was that it is too time consuming.
United States), students are expected to “challenge perspec- Nonusers also cited “limited training/expertise” in knowing
tives, values, and attitudes in literary and non-literary texts, how to collect and analyze samples. Similar results were ob-
developing and testing their own interpretations through tained from a survey of the LSA practices of Australian
debate and argument.” SLPs working with children and adolescents (Westerveld
Although expectations for persuasion can be found & Claessen, 2014). Westerveld and Claessen (2014) further
across all grade levels in both the U.S. and Australian stan- identified that most SLPs rely on normative data to inter-
dards, assessing and treating persuasive discourse takes on pret student performance on LSA tasks and highlighted
a particular significance for speech-language pathologists how language sample measures are difficult to interpret
(SLPs) working with adolescents with language disorders. when normative data are not available.
In the United States, the Individuals with Disabilities Edu- Faced with a paucity of normative data on persua-
cation Act (2004) requires planning for special education sion and a lack of clinically feasible assessment tasks, it is
students who are 16 years and older to help them transition understandable why few SLPs have elected to collect per-
from high school to postsecondary education or employ- suasive samples from their older students. Early studies of
ment, and (whenever possible) to independent living. Some persuasive speaking had a limited focus on the acquisition
states require the planning to begin earlier. For example, of global argumentative and negotiation skills and pro-
Wisconsin mandates that transition planning be part of the vided no data on the linguistic growth associated with
first individualized education program that will be in effect persuasion (e.g., Clark & Delia, 1976; Clark et al., 1986;
when the child turns 14 years (Wisconsin Statute 115.787 Flavell, 1968; Kline & Clinton, 1998). Several studies docu-
[2][g]1). mented the persuasive difficulties of individuals with com-
In crafting transition plans for their students, persua- munication disorders, including adolescents and adults
sive discourse is an excellent skill for SLPs to consider with traumatic brain injury (Ghayoumi et al., 2015; Moran
addressing. In Appendix A of the CCSS-ELA, persuasion et al., 2012), children with autism (To et al., 2016), and
is elevated in importance over narration and exposition children with language disorders (Brinton et al., 1998; Stevens
because it is regarded as critical for college and career & Bliss, 1995), yet these studies provided minimal bench-
readiness (National Governors Association, 2010). Highlight- mark data from typically developing speakers. Nippold,
ing the importance of persuasion is supported by the litera- Ward-Lonergan, and Fanning’s (2005) data were limited
ture, since being persuasive is essential for meeting the to writing, whereas Brimo and Hall-Mills (2019) analyzed
demands of postsecondary education (e.g., Osana & Seymour, spoken and written persuasion in a group of 64 ninth graders
2004) and the workforce (e.g., Soresi et al., 2008). In addi- and reported only on the students’ use of complex syntax.
tion, persuasive skills are a strong predictor of successful Although these studies provide an emerging evidence base
442 Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools • Vol. 51 • 441–456 • April 2020

to motivate the clinical adoption of persuasive language relationship between the dozens of measures that are avail-
sampling, there continues to be a lack of published proto- able to describe a student’s language ability (see Miller
cols with affiliated normative database to use in clinical et al., 2016). Our prior work has documented that LSA
assessments. Thus, we set out to provide SLPs with com- can be effective at describing multiple dimensions of lan-
prehensive benchmark data for adolescents’ spoken persua- guage in narrative and expository discourse (e.g., Heilmann
sion at both the macrostructure level (i.e., broad discourse & Malone, 2014; Westerveld & Gillon, 2010), but it re-
organization skills) and microstructure level (i.e., syntax, mains unknown if persuasive measures can truly capture
vocabulary, and speaking fluency; Miller et al., 2016). Our multiple dimensions of language ability.
first step was to develop a functional and efficient elicita-
tion protocol.
Previous studies of persuasive discourse have required Testing the Validity of Discourse Measures
participants to respond to a single persuasive issue selected To better understand the nature of persuasive dis-
by the researchers, such as seeking parental permission to course measures, we tested the relationship between the
host a large sleepover (Clark & Delia, 1976), arguing for persuasive measures and measures of general language,
or against training animals to perform in a circus (Nippold, working memory, and personality.
Ward-Lonergan, & Fanning, 2005), and asserting whether
or not high school students should hold part-time jobs after
school (Brimo & Hall-Mills, 2019). Because speakers tend General Language Ability
to perform best when allowed to discuss what they know Prior studies have found weak to moderate positive
and care about (Nippold, 2014), we elected to allow our correlations between omnibus norm-referenced language
participants to choose their own issue. They were asked assessments and language sample measures from conversa-
to argue for a change in their school, workplace, or com- tions (e.g., Ukrainetz & Blomquist, 2002), narratives (e.g.,
munity since these settings are relevant for transition plan- Ebert & Scott, 2014), and expositives (e.g., Nippold et al.,
ning and since at least one should be highly meaningful to 2009). These results suggest that the two types of measures
all adolescents. This preference for self-selected issues was may be assessing similar underlying ability (i.e., language
reinforced by our prior research on exposition, where we ability), yet somewhat distinct aspects of that ability (i.e.,
found that students in Grades 5–9 enjoyed the opportu- decontextualized language vs. functional language). To
nity to self-select a favorite game or sport to explain (Heil- our knowledge, the relationships between general lan-
mann & Malone, 2014; Westerveld & Moran, 2011). guage measures and persuasive discourse have not been
investigated.
Testing the Properties of Discourse Measures

Working Memory
Implementing an assessment protocol with a large Several studies have shown that working memory
group of participants affords the opportunity to examine skills play a key role in an individual’s ability to use
the properties of the protocol and resulting measures. The spoken discourse (Chapman et al., 2006; Hay & Moran,
research team can test if there is sufficient documentation 2005). For example, Chapman et al. (2006) found a signifi-
and training so that multiple examiners can implement the cant relationship between working memory, as measured
assessment with a high level of fidelity (e.g., Kaderavek & by children’s performance on an n-back task, and the abil-
Justice, 2010). At the same time, protocols that allow par- ity to process the central themes of stories in adolescents
ticipants the freedom to align their productions to their with and without brain injury. Hay and Moran (2005) docu-
own personal interests could introduce unwanted variabil- mented a significant relationship between children’s perfor-
ity across the speakers. Our prior research on expository mance on two assessments of working memory (nonword
discourse identified that there were no significant differ- repetition and the Competing Language Processing Task
ences based on the type of contest that the students selected [CLPT]; Gaulin & Campbell, 1994) and macrostructure
(Heilmann & Malone, 2014). It is unknown if allowing measures derived from narrative and expository language
adolescents the freedom to choose their own controversial samples in 9- to 15-year-old students with and without trau-
issue and target audience has a sizeable impact on the matic brain injury.
quality of their persuasive productions.
Having a database of typically developing speakers
further allows testing of the properties of the persuasive Personality
measures. When assessing the language of children and Multiple studies have documented a robust relation-
adolescents, one consideration is determining if the measures ship between extroversion and effective persuasion (e.g.,
are sensitive to development. Language sample measures Nussbaum & Bendixen, 2003; Oreg & Sverdlik, 2014). For
tend to show rapid growth in preschool- and elementary- instance, Oreg and Sverdlik (2014) found that young adults
age children (e.g., Leadholm & Miller, 1992), with more who rated themselves as being extroverts and/or having
modest growth from middle school into adulthood (e.g., an openness toward experiences were more likely to engage
Heilmann & Malone, 2014; Nippold, 2014). A further in debates that were more persuasive than their peers
consideration when completing LSA is understanding the with high ratings of neuroticism.
Heilmann et al.: Persuasion in Adolescents 443

Summary and Rationale race/ethnicity, free/reduced lunch status, and overall grade
point average (GPA). We then selected students to roughly
Adolescents’ competence at persuasion is vital to
match the racial/ethnic makeup of the broader United
academic success and to readiness for postsecondary edu-
States at the time of sampling (see Humes et al., 2011).
cation and/or employment. However, recommendations
The racial/ethnic distribution of the U.S. sample was as
that SLPs collect and analyze persuasive language samples
follows: 63% White, 17% African American, 8% Hispanic/
from their adolescent students have not been followed,
Latino, 8% Asian/Pacific Islander, and 4% not reported.
perhaps, in part, due to the lack of a clinically feasible pro-
For the U.S. sample, 25% of the students qualified for free/
tocol and a paucity of normative benchmarks for persua-
reduced lunch. The samples were approximately equated
sion. To fill this gap, we set out to create an elicitation
on gender (48% female; 52% male). Academic performance
protocol that would allow examiners to quickly and accu-
was defined as high (90% GPA or higher; 72% of the
rately capture adolescents’ spoken persuasion in a replicable
sample), average (80%–90% GPA; 25% of the sample), and
manner. By collecting samples from typically developing
low (70%–80% GPA; 3% of the sample). Selected students
speakers using a standardized protocol, we had the oppor-
were assigned to a participating SLP, and each SLP col-
tunity to compile a database and establish benchmark
lected samples from one to four students.
expectations across grade levels for multiple measures of
For the Australian sample, 66 students were recruited
persuasive discourse. Once we assembled the normative
from Grades 8, 10, and 12. A total of 15 SLPs working
data, we were in a position to complete analyses of its psy-
for the Department of Education and Training in Queens-
chometric properties by addressing the following aims:
land organized the distribution of information sheets and
1. To test whether differences in persuasive issue and collection of the parent/student consent forms. Students
intended audience had a sizeable impact on the result- were from metropolitan, regional, and remote areas in
ing language measures; Queensland. The majority of the students were White (origi-
2. To describe the properties of persuasive discourse in nating from Australia, New Zealand, and Europe; 76%);
adolescents by summarizing performance across additional ethnicities included students from indigenous
macro- and microstructure measures and to test for backgrounds (3%), Pacific Islander (2%), other (9%), and
significant grade-related changes; not reported (10%). The sample was somewhat more
weighted with female students (67%) than male students
3. To complete a factor analysis to determine whether (33%).
persuasive measures capture multiple dimensions of
language; and
4. To test whether standardized measures of general Data Collection
language ability, working memory, and personality Persuasive Language Sampling Protocol
significantly correlate with persuasive language sample A central goal in developing our persuasive task was
measures. to set clear expectations for detailed and comprehensive
persuasive samples. In most studies in the developmental
and clinical literatures, researchers simply provided partici-
Method pants with a persuasive issue and then prompted them to
immediately begin talking about it. We chose instead to
Participants make our expectations explicit by giving participants a
Prior to initiating this study, we acquired institutional planning sheet with a list of the components of an argu-
review board (or equivalent) permission from the two ment we expected them to cover (see Appendix A) and
participating universities and each participating school dis- time to plan. We modeled the format of the sheet on the
trict. There were 179 adolescents who participated in this expository planning sheet in our favorite game or sport
study, recruited from sites in the United States (n = 113) study (Heilmann & Malone, 2014), where it facilitated
and Australia (n = 66). All participants received a $10 gift complete and lengthy explanations. With these design
card for participating in the study. We chose to develop a choices, our intent was to make the task more authentically
database of typically developing speakers, as normative resemble the persuasive situations adolescents typically
data are most sensitive when the database does not include encounter, both in and out of the classroom.
individuals with disabilities (Peña et al., 2006). Therefore, To identify which aspects of persuasion to include
we verified that participants were not receiving any special on the planning sheet, we drew from the CCSS for written
education services and were not being evaluated for such persuasion at Grades 11 and 12, as these standards pro-
services. For the U.S. samples, 24 school-based SLPs vided the most in-depth description of expected persuasive
volunteered to elicit language samples from high school competencies. We also reviewed the literature and identi-
students (Grades 9, 10, 11, and 12) from two major metro- fied three major features of persuasive discourse that had
politan areas in Wisconsin. To ensure a representative been shown to improve with age. First, older children (who
group of participants, we mailed over 1,000 consent forms were more effective persuaders) provided more arguments
to high school students in participating districts. Each supporting their position, and the quality of the arguments
school district provided data on the consenting students’ was judged superior to their younger peers (Clark & Delia,

1976; Flavell, 1968; Kline & Clinton, 1998). To encourage can tell me?”) or a specific request to address an omitted
the students to formulate a well-defined position on an point.
issue, along with a strong rationale for that position, we
asked participants to include (a) Issue Identification and Additional Data Collection
Desired Change and (b) Supporting Reasons on their plan- In addition to collecting the persuasive samples, both
ning sheet. Second, older children were better able to antic- the U.S. and Australian groups completed further testing
ipate counterarguments, address those counterarguments, to meet additional research goals. The U.S. students com-
and offer consensus solutions (Clark & Delia, 1976; Clark pleted an expository language sample; reporting the ex-
et al., 1986; Felton & Kuhn, 2001; Kline & Clinton, 1998), pository data was beyond the scope of this study. The
motivating us to ask participants to include (c) Counter- Australian students completed a battery of language, work-
arguments/Other Point of View, (d) Response to Counter- ing memory, and personality testing, which were included
arguments, and (e) Compromises. In addition, because in this study to address our fourth research aim.
of the power imbalance inherent in an adolescent making To capture the Australian participants’ overall lan-
a request of an adult authority figure, it is natural to expect guage ability, we administered the Recalling Sentences
that the student would be the one to offer a compromise. subtest of the Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals–
Finally, following the CCSS-ELA, we asked participants Fourth Edition (CELF-4; Semel et al., 2003). The perfor-
to summarize their argument with a (f ) Conclusion mance of young adults on a sentence repetition task was
statement. shown to be a quick and accurate method of assessing
language ability (e.g., Poll et al., 2010). To document the
Collection of Persuasive Language Samples participants’ working memory skills, we administered the
SLPs in both the United States and Australia followed CLPT (Gaulin & Campbell, 1994), which cued the stu-
the same protocol for collecting the persuasive samples. dents to judge the truthfulness of a statement (e.g., “babies
All SLPs viewed a short training video describing the pro- can drive trucks”) while holding the last word of each
tocol and were instructed to review the elicitation materials statement in the working memory (e.g., “trucks”). Ellis
prior to seeing their first participant. The SLPs brought Weismer et al. (1999) demonstrated that the word recall
participants to a quiet location in the school and explained component of the CLPT was sensitive to differences be-
the task by reading from a script (see protocol in Appendix B). tween children with language disorders and their typically
Participants were instructed to direct their arguments to developing peers. Although it may appear that the Recal-
a principal, boss, or government official. Pilot testing revealed ling Sentences task and the CLPT both capture a combi-
that some adolescents had difficulty generating a persuasive nation of language and working memory ability, Klem
issue on their own. In response, we consulted with experts et al. (2015) documented that sentence repetition is a rel-
in LSA and participating SLPs to develop a list of 20 is- atively “pure” method of assessing oral language skill,
sues from which participants could select (see Appendix C). whereas Gaulin and Campbell (1994) showed that perfor-
Participants were also given the option of generating their mance on the CLPT is predominantly influenced by chil-
own persuasive issue. dren’s working memory ability. In addition, we acquired
We directed the examiners to insist that participants the students’ self-reported personality descriptions with
spend time planning what they wanted to say before begin- the Ten-Item Personality Inventory (Gosling et al., 2003),
ning to speak. Examiners first instructed participants to a brief measure of the Big Five Personality domains. The
talk “for at least a few minutes” and later for “as long as Big Five Personality framework posits that there are five
possible.” To help them achieve this, participants were dimensions of personality that vary in composure and in-
instructed to make brief notes for each point listed on the tensity: extroversion (how an individual seeks out interac-
planning sheet (see Appendix A). They were asked to re- tions with others), agreeableness (quality of interactions
frain from writing in full sentences so that the task would with others), conscientiousness (ability to control impulses
not turn into a writing assessment. In lieu of or in addi- and conform to social norms), neuroticism (emotional
tion to taking notes, students were given the option of stability), and openness to experiences (willingness to try
using the back of their planning sheet to draw a diagram new things).
or graphic organizer. Once planning was complete, the
students were reminded to give a complete argument and
were encouraged to refer to their planning sheet while Administration Fidelity
speaking. Once the students completed the planning sheet, To determine the SLPs’ fidelity to the elicitation pro-
the examiner turned on a digital audio recorder and directed tocol, we reviewed every examiner utterance. Across all
the students to begin speaking. As noted in Appendix B, transcripts, the examiners produced 522 utterances. Most
examiners were instructed to limit their talking to basic utterances (n = 443; 84.8%) were affirmations (e.g., “mhm,”
affirmations (e.g., Uh huh) while the participants produced “OK,” “alright”), which was encouraged in the elicitation
their samples. If a participant produced a very short sample protocol (see Appendix B). Seventy (13.4%) of the utter-
or did not include a point from the planning sheet, the ances were requests for additional information (e.g., “Can
examiner was instructed to probe for more information you tell me anything else?”), which were also consistent
with a general point (e.g., “Is there anything else you with the protocol. Six (1.1%) utterances were used to clarify

the elicitation process to the child (e.g., “Yes, the recorder • Number of total C-units (Total C-units) was calcu-
is still on”), which were not part of the protocol yet were lated by summing the total number of C-units and
reasonable and likely had minimal impact on child perfor- provided another index of sample length. Heilmann
mance. Three (0.6%) utterances were cues not allowed via and Malone (2014) found that Total Words and
the protocol and may have influenced those participants’ Total C-units captured a unique dimension of pro-
performance. One SLP produced two utterances that ductivity in pre-adolescents’ expository discourse.
explained what compromises were (“What’s the opposite • Percentage of maze words (% Mazes) was calculated
of your argument?” and “The other person who might by first hand coding all words produced as mazes,
argue against your point.”). One SLP reminded the child defined as false starts, repetitions, and reformulations.
to pretend that he was talking to his chosen authority The software then calculated the percentage of the
figure. total words produced as mazes. Thordardottir and
Ellis Weismer (2002) documented that children with
Transcription and Coding of Persuasive Samples language disorders used significantly more mazes
than their typically developing peers.
The samples were transcribed using the Systematic
Analysis of Language Transcripts (SALT; Miller & Iglesias, • Percentage of C-units with errors and omissions
2018). Utterances were segmented using communication (% Errors) was calculated by first hand coding all
units (C-units), which consisted of an independent clause errors (syntactic and lexical) and omissions (both words
and all associated dependent finite clauses (Loban, 1976). and bound morphemes). The software then calculated
Utterances that were incomplete or contained unintelligible the percentage of C-units that contain at least one error
segments were excluded from the analyses. To capture mul- or omission. This coding method is equivalent to the
tiple aspects of discourse, we selected eight language mea- percentage of grammatical C-units, which Eisenberg
sures that have been shown to be sensitive to differences and Guo (2013) found to be sensitive to differences
across ages and language ability in school-age children and between children with and without language disorders.
adolescents. Seven of these measures were microstructural In addition to these seven microstructure measures,
and were automatically generated by SALT: we developed a rubric to measure persuasive macrostruc-
• Mean length of C-unit in words (MLCU) was calcu- ture, termed the Persuasive Scoring Scheme (PSS; see
lated by dividing the total number of words by the Appendix D; see the Supplemental Material for all four
total number of C-units. MLCU has been shown to appendices in their original format and sequence of use).
be sensitive to differences in adolescents with and with- Five characteristics of persuasive discourse were taken
out language disorders (Nippold et al., 2008) and is directly from the planning sheet. There were two additional
closely related to other measures of syntactic com- characteristics: Cohesion, a rating of how successful students
plexity (Heilmann & Malone, 2014; Westerveld & were at providing clear referents and smooth transitions,
Moran, 2013). and Effectiveness, a global rating of how convincing the
speaker was in making the listener accept his or her argu-
• Clausal density (also termed subordination index) is a
ment. The format of the PSS was modeled on our previous
measure of syntactic complexity calculated by divid-
ing the total number of finite independent and depen- work on narrative (Heilmann et al., 2010) and expository
dent clauses by the total number of C-units. Nippold, (Heilmann & Malone, 2014) rubrics. Each of the seven
Hesketh, et al. (2005) observed that clausal density major characteristics of persuasive discourse was rated on
slowly increased with age in both conversational and a 1–5 scale, with three distinct anchor points: minimal/
expository discourse, whereas Nippold et al. (2008) immature (1 point), satisfactory/adequate (3 points), and
showed that adolescents with language disorders pro- proficient/advanced (5 points). Transcribers assigned codes
duced expository samples with lower clausal density of 1–5 based on the students’ performance, with scores of 2
values compared to their typically developing peers. and 4 given if the student’s sample was judged to be between
the anchored reference points.
• Moving-average type–token ratio (MATTR) is a
method of calculating type–token ratio (TTR; i.e.,
the ratio of different word roots to total word roots) Transcription and Coding Accuracy
that controls for variations in the length of a sample All recorded samples were transcribed and coded by
(Covington & McFall, 2010). The software selected the team at the SALT Transcription Lab, which is a pro-
the default window (i.e., 100 words), calculated the fessional transcription service that provides fee-based lan-
TTR for multiple windows throughout the sample, guage transcription services for clinicians and researchers.
and then calculated a TTR for the entire sample by All transcribers in the SALT lab completed at least 10 hr
averaging all the 100-word TTRs. MATTR is a mea- of training and had to achieve at least 90% agreement on
sure of lexical diversity. practice transcripts before being assigned their own tran-
• Number of total words (Total Words) was calculated scripts. Each sample was transcribed using the consensus
by summing the total number of word roots, which transcription and coding procedure, where one transcriber
provided an index of sample length. completed an initial transcription of the sample, which was

later checked by a second transcriber (who listened to the for the age differences across the groups. The Australian
sample while reviewing the transcript). The two transcribers participants produced samples that were significantly shorter
discussed any discrepancies, with the first transcriber re- than participants from the United States, as reflected by
sponsible for making final decisions regarding the transcript. lower Total Words (EMMAus = 354.9; EMMUS = 504.7)
The lab manager completed fidelity checks for approxi- and Total C-units (EMMAus = 22.7; EMMUS = 32.2). No
mately 10% of the transcripts from the lab. clinically significant differences were observed for the other
To document the accuracy of coding, two research seven measures, F(1, 176) = 0.31−4.04, p = .06−.31, ƞ2 ≤ .02.
assistants from the first author’s lab completed consensus Further analysis of the length of the samples was
coding for clausal density and PSS for 20 transcripts. The conducted given the clinically significant differences be-
clausal density and PSS codes completed by this second tween the two countries for these two measures of sample
team of coders were compared to the coding completed by length. We found a small and nonsignificant correlation be-
the SALT Transcription Lab. For clausal density, there was tween the PSS and Total Words (r = .21) and Total C-units
92.5% agreement between the two teams of transcribers; of (r = .11), demonstrating that the length of the persuasive
the 803 C-units recoded, there was agreement for 743 C-units. samples in the current study had a weak relationship with
We used Krippendorff’s alpha to document agreement in overall sample quality. Given that the measures of length
PSS coding; alpha provides stronger agreement when coders appeared to provide minimal description of linguistic ability
give the same score or when differences are close (e.g., 24 vs. when completing persuasive language sampling using our
25) and penalizes with weaker agreement for scores with protocol, we elected to remove the two measures of length
larger discrepancies (e.g., 10 vs. 25; see Krippendorff, 2011). from all further analyses.
For our evaluation of the PSS, α = .79, indicating good
agreement across coders.
Research Aim 1: Testing for Differences Across
Persuasive Issue and Target Audience
Results To determine if the participants’ freedom in tailoring
their persuasive samples to their own interests introduced
Preliminary Analyses substantial variability in the measures, we first tested for
Though all participants were fluent English speakers differences in measures based on whether the participants
and living in industrialized countries, subtle differences in used one of the 20 issues that we provided or chose an issue
culture and/or educational practices could result in differ- of their own. Many participants (n = 122; 68%) selected
ences in measures across the two countries. We first wanted one of the issues provided. This pattern was consistent
to ensure that there were minimal differences in the mea- across the two countries, with 66% of the U.S. participants
sures across the two countries to confirm that all samples and 73% of the Australian participants selecting a pro-
could be used within a single database. Given the differ- vided issue. We completed a series of one-way analysis of
ences in grades sampled across the two countries, it was variance equations (ANOVAs), with each of the six language
not surprising that the participants from the Australian measures as the dependent variable and issue source
group (Mage = 15;1, SD = 1;8 [years;months]) were consid- (provided vs. self-generated) as the between-groups variable.
erably younger than those in the U.S. group (Mage = 16;7, No clinically significant differences were observed for any
SD = 1;2). Thus, we controlled for age by completing a of the six measures, F(1, 177) = 0.01–1.99, p ≥ .16, ƞ2 ≤ .01.
series of analysis of covariance equations, with each re- In choosing an issue, the students were instructed to
spective measure as the dependent variable (i.e., MLCU, choose one of three different target audience members for
MATTR, etc.), country as the between-groups variable their persuasive language sample. Most participants chose
(United States vs. Australia), and age as the covariate. We School Official as the target audience (n = 126; 70%),
documented the amount of variability explained by coun- followed by Government Official (n = 50; 29%) and
try for each variable using eta squared (ƞ2) and determined Employer (n = 3; 1%). Again, target audience selection was
if it met the threshold for clinical significance. Ferguson similar across both countries (United States: School Offi-
(2009) provided guidelines for interpreting the clinical sig- cial = 69%, Government Official = 29%, Employer = 2%;
nificance of ƞ2, with a cutoff of .04 as the minimum effect Australia: School Official = 73%, Government Official =
that may be of clinical significance. He further proposed 26%, Employer = 1%). A series of ANOVAs were com-
that effect sizes of .25–.64 have a moderate clinical effect, pleted with each measure and revealed that there were no
and effect sizes > .64 have a strong clinical effect. clinically significant differences across the three target audi-
We observed significant differences across countries ence groups for each of the seven measures evaluated in this
for two of the nine measures, including Total Words, study, F(2, 176) = 0.03–2.94, p = .06–.97, ƞ2 ≤ .03.
F(1, 176) = 14.6, p < .001, ƞ 2 = .08, and Total C-units,
F(1, 176) = 13.6, p < .001, ƞ 2 = .13, with effect sizes
Research Aim 2: Summary of Student Performance
exceeding Ferguson’s (2009) proposed threshold for clinical
significance. To illustrate the differences across the U.S. on the Database
and Australian participants, we calculated the estimated Given that there were minimal differences across
marginal mean (EMM) for each measure, which accounted location, issue, and audience, we compiled all samples into

a single database. We first summarized descriptive data and % Errors; eigenvalue = 1.3, explaining 22.0% of the
(means and standard deviations) broken down by grade, variance), and (c) content (MATTR and PSS; eigenvalue =
which are available in Table 1. We next examined grade- 1.0, explaining 17.2% of the variance).
related differences for each persuasive measure. A series of
one-way ANOVAs were completed using each respective
language measure as the dependent variable and grade Research Aim 4: Validity of Persuasive Measures
(8, 9, 10, 11, and 12) as the independent variable. For To test the validity of the persuasive measures, we
measures where we observed a significant difference across completed a series of analyses to document the relationship
grade, we completed Scheffé post hoc tests. The bottom between the persuasive language sample measures and ad-
rows of Table 1 summarize the results of the significance ditional measures of general language, working memory,
testing and provide a summary of the resulting effect sizes and personality from the 66 Australian students recruited
for these comparisons. We observed significant grade-level for this study.
differences for clausal density, % Mazes, % Errors, and
PSS. These grade-level differences had effect sizes that
were clinically significant (i.e., ƞ2 ≥ .04; Ferguson, 2009) Relationship Between Persuasive Language, General
but low in strength (i.e., ƞ2 = .05–.06). Scheffé post hoc Language Ability, and Working Memory
tests revealed significant differences for % Mazes only, Two sets of Pearson correlation coefficients were
which identified that the eighth-grade students produced calculated to document the relationship between the per-
significantly fewer words in mazes than those in the 10th suasive language sample measures and the measures of
grade. There were no significant grade-level differences general language ability (raw score on Recalling Sentences
for MLCU and MATTR. from the CELF-4) and working memory (total number of
words recalled correctly on the CLPT). We used raw scores
from the CELF-4 and CLPT to achieve consistency with
Research Aim 3: What Aspects of Language the persuasive language measures, which were not adjusted
Does Persuasive Discourse Capture? for age. The summary of these correlations is presented in
Table 3. Significant correlations were observed between
One of the strengths of LSA is that the examiner can Recalling Sentences and two persuasive measures (PSS and
document performance across multiple dimensions of lan- % Errors); there were no significant correlations between
guage using one single sample. To test whether the persua- Recalling Sentences and the four other persuasive measures.
sive measures captured distinct dimensions of language Significant correlations were also observed between the
(i.e., latent variables) or were unidimensional, we com- CLPT and two persuasive measures (MATTR and PSS);
pleted an exploratory factor analysis with varimax rotation. there were no significant correlations between the CLPT
Factors with eigenvalues > 1 were retained in the final and the four remaining narrative measures.
model. A total of four rotations were used to generate the
final estimates, which resulted in a model with three distinct
latent variables. The loadings for each of the persuasive Relationship Between Persuasive Language and Personality
measures relative to the three latent variables are summa- We next tested the relationship between the adoles-
rized in Table 2. We reviewed the factor loadings and iden- cents’ persuasive language use and their self-rated personal-
tified which measures had the strongest unique loadings ity descriptions from the Ten-Item Personality Inventory
onto each latent variable (in bold in Table 2). We concluded (Gosling et al., 2003). Because the personality ratings used
that the three latent variables captured aspects of (a) syntax ordinal data (i.e., rankings of one to seven), we completed
(MLCU and clausal density; eigenvalue = 1.8, explaining nonparametric Spearman’s rho correlations between the
29.8% of the variance), (b) discourse difficulties (% Mazes measures. No significant correlations were observed between
Table 1. Persuasive discourse performance broken down by grade.
Variable Grade MLCU Clausal density MATTR % Mazes % Errors PSS
Descriptive data 8 15.2 (4.1) 1.9 (0.3) .63 (.04) 6.4 (3.6) 19.6 (11.1) 21.9 (3.7)
9 15.9 (2.5) 2.1 (0.4) .63 (.03) 9.2 (4.8) 16.4 (12.4) 22.9 (3.9)
10 16.0 (3.5) 2.0 (0.4) .62 (.03) 10.1 (6.5) 24.0 (15.2) 22.3 (4.5)
11 17.2 (3.6) 2.2 (0.3) .63 (.04) 7.9 (3.5) 16.9 (9.5) 25.4 (3.4)
12 17.0 (4.2) 2.1 (0.4) .63 (.03) 9.3 (5.1) 17.9 (12.3) 22.7 (4.7)
All grades combined 16.3 (3.7) 2.0 (.04) .63 (.03) 8.9 (5.2) 19.3 (12.9) 22.9 (4.3)
Inferential statistics F(4, 174) 1.6 2.6 0.3 2.7 2.4 2.8
p .17 .04 .91 .03 .05 .03
Eta squared .04 .06 < .01 .06 .05 .06
Scheffé post hoc test NS 8 < 10 NS NS
Note. MLCU = mean length of C-unit in words; MATTR = moving-average type–token ratio; PSS = Persuasive Scoring Scheme.

Table 2. Eigenvalues from exploratory factor analysis.
Properties of Persuasive Measures
Variable Syntax Difficulties Content The students produced relatively short samples,
averaging 29 C-units produced in 3.4 min (SD = 1.7 min).
MLCU .92 .07 .03 Despite the brevity of the samples, students displayed
Clausal density .92 −.01 −.03
MATTR −.19 .13 .83
sophisticated levels of language production. Values for
% Mazes .04 .73 .01 clausal density were impressive, with a mean of 2.0 (SD =
% Errors .01 .79 −.08 0.4), as were those for MLCU, with a mean of 16.3 (SD =
PSS .25 −.27 .64 3.7). On average, our students were using at least one
Note. Bolded values interpreted as having substantial, unique dependent clause per C-unit. The syntactic complexity of
loadings onto respective latent variables. MLCU = mean length of our spoken persuasive samples was comparable to that of
C-unit in words; MATTR = moving-average type–token ratio; PSS = the written persuasive samples described in the work of
Persuasive Scoring Scheme. Nippold, Ward-Lonergan, and Fanning (2005), who found
that typically developing college students had a mean MLCU
of 16 words. The typically developing students in Moran
any of the five personality domains and the six persuasive et al.’s (2012) study had an average MLCU of 13.2 and a
language sample measures (r = −.24−.23, p = .06−.98). clausal density of 1.8, which were nearly one standard de-
viation lower than the students in our study. One reason
for the difference could simply be the sample size. Because
Moran et al. only sampled eight typically developing students,
Discussion a more representative sample might have demonstrated a
There is a need for SLPs to have access to functional, different pattern of performance. Another potential expla-
authentic assessments to describe the nature of their adoles- nation is the availability of the planning sheet in this study.
cent students’ spoken language skills. Given that persuasive By having the opportunity to plan the components of the
ability contributes to academic success and social well- persuasive sample and use the planning notes to scaffold
being, analysis of persuasive discourse has the potential to their production, students may have been supported in
fill that need. We developed a task to sample students’ per- producing longer and more complex utterances.
suasive discourse and collected benchmark data from typi- One surprising finding was the relatively high frequency
cally developing adolescents (Grades 8–12). Thirty-nine of errors and omissions. On average, approximately 20%
SLPs volunteered their time to collect the data reported in of the adolescents’ C-units contained at least one error or
this study. These SLPs reported that the protocol was easy omission, which was notably higher than Heilmann and
to administer and took roughly 20 min to complete, con- Malone’s (2014) examination of expository discourse in
sisting of instructions, planning, and the sample itself. De- somewhat younger children, where 11% of C-units contained
spite having dozens of SLPs collecting data across multiple an error, on average. Further analysis of the students’ per-
schools and spanning two countries, remarkably stable formance revealed that most mistakes students made were
data were collected. The brief training and detailed protocol lexical in nature: 60% were word-level errors, 27% were
were sufficient to guide the SLPs to elicit data with high omissions of words, 9% were utterance-level errors, and
fidelity—the protocol was correctly executed for 177 of 4% were omissions of bound morphemes. We further ob-
the 179 samples. The two instances that deviated from the served that longer utterances were more likely to contain
protocol were minor and likely had minimal impact on the errors. Of the 3,338 C-units that were ≥ 15 words in length,
participants’ productions. In addition, our standardized 24% contained at least one word-level error. Conversely,
protocol afforded students the ability to individualize their only 5% of the 2,248 C-units that were less than 15 words
productions to their interests, with minimal impact on the in length contained at least one error.
resulting measures. The persuasive issue and target audience The demands of producing very long utterances,
chosen did not affect the persuasive measures for the stu- common in these persuasive samples, may have had an im-
dents’ samples, which was consistent with our prior research pact on students’ accurate use of vocabulary and at times
on expository discourse (Heilmann & Malone, 2014). grammar. Consider, for example, the following complex
Table 3. Correlations between persuasive language sample measures, Recalling Sentences, and the Competing Language Processing Test
(CLPT).
Variable MLUw Clausal density MATTR % Mazes PSS % Errors
Recalling Sentences −.06 −.05 .07 .17 .42** −.49**

CLPT −.03 .04 .30* .19 .34** –.19
Note. MLUw = mean length of utterance in words; MATTR = moving-average type–token ratio; PSS = Persuasive Scoring Scheme.
*p ≤ .05. **p ≤ .01.

utterance on raising the minimum wage, which comprises with prior studies (e.g., Ebert & Scott, 2014; Nippold et al.,
37 words and six finite clauses: 2009; Ukrainetz & Blomquist, 2002) and were likely
because the different tasks captured unique features of the
And so I guess
some[EW:one] of the first steps would be language system.
what I’m trying to do to you right now, Although there is some evidence that an individual’s
*which is make you aware of it, personality is predictive of their persuasive skills (e.g.,
even though you probably are aware Nussbaum & Bendixen, 2003; Oreg & Sverdlik, 2014), we
because you’re a government official. found no such relationship. The limited relationship was
likely a function of the task and/or coding protocols
Despite the strong language ability on display, this employed in this study. The majority of studies that exam-
student omitted an obligatory word, “which” (indicated ined the development of argumentative skill came out of
with an asterisk). In addition, the speaker made a word- social psychology, where the goal was not to document
level error involving “one” (some[EW:one], which is linguistic ability but rather to document a speaker’s overall
SALT’s coding convention for the substitution of “some” effectiveness. Our one macrostructure measure, the PSS,
for “one”), which was incorrect because the speaker offered may not have captured some of the nuances of persuasive
only a single step. skill that are influenced by personality. Alternatively, Oreg
Across all of the measures, we observed relatively and Sverdlik (2014) demonstrated that personality had
small grade-related changes in measures. There were statis- minimal influence on persuasive ability when speakers dis-
tically significant grade-level changes observed for four cussed high-interest issues. We strategically designed our
of the six measures studied, but grade only accounted for study so that the persuasive issue would be highly relevant
4%–6% of the variance in the measures. The relatively to the speaker. The students’ high interest in the task may
small grade-related differences observed in this study were have offset any impact of personality on the persuasive
consistent with previous studies examining expository dis- productions.
course, which found that discourse measures underwent In sum, the results of the correlation analyses between
slow and steady increases from the middle-school years Recalling Sentences, CLPT, and the six persuasive dis-
through adulthood (e.g., Heilmann & Malone, 2014; course measures confirmed that there is some overlap between
Nippold, 2016). Upon completing our exploratory factor persuasive measures and standardized, decontextualized
analysis, we observed a parsimonious explanation of the language, and working memory measures. This result dem-
variability that resulted in three latent variables, which onstrates some level of convergent validity, while further
aptured the participants’ syntax skills, discourse difficulties, illustrating that the two types of measures capture unique
and content. This analysis was largely consistent with our aspects of adolescents’ language ability. In addition, we
prior work showing that LSA can capture multiple aspects were pleased to find that personality did not have an overly
of both expository discourse (Heilmann & Malone, 2014) large impact on the persuasive measures described in this
and narrative discourse (Westerveld & Gillon, 2010). study. Given that our goal in developing the persuasive
assessment protocol was to documents students’ language
ability, this lack of a relationship between personality and
Validity of Persuasive Measures persuasive measures documents the divergent validity of
The 66 adolescents who completed additional lan- the assessment.
guage, working memory, and personality testing afforded
the opportunity to identify which of these measures were
related to our persuasive measures (convergent validity) Study Limitations
and which were not related (divergent validity). We first We strategically recruited students from a variety
examined the relationship between the persuasive measures of racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status backgrounds that
and the general language and working memory measures, mirrored the broader Australian and U.S. populations, which,
summarized in Table 3. One clear result was the significant by definition, resulted in a sample that predominantly con-
positive correlation between the PSS and both the Recal- sisted of adolescents from mainstream backgrounds. Fur-
ling Sentences and CLPT scores, which demonstrated the thermore, the study was limited to fluent English speakers.
importance of language and working memory for overall Therefore, we do not know if the trends observed in this
discourse organization skills. This result was consistent study generalize to students whose cultural, economic, and/
with prior research demonstrating that working memory or linguistic characteristics substantially differ from the stu-
skills are related to adolescent and adult discourse organi- dents in the sample.
zation skills (Chapman et al., 2006; Hay & Moran, 2005).
A second clear pattern was the modest relationship be-
tween Recalling Sentences, CLPT scores, and three of the Future Research
persuasive measures: MLCU, clausal density, and % Mazes. Our ultimate goal is to develop a validated language
These inconsistent patterns of relationships between micro- sampling protocol that can be used clinically to assess the
structural discourse measures and decontextualized assess- functional persuasive discourse of adolescents. In this
ments of language and working memory were consistent study, we took the first steps toward this goal by developing

a persuasive protocol and then using it to establish bench- recognized that there were not many published assess-
mark data on typically developing adolescents. Given the ments for older students, so we completed this research to
documented difficulties that persuasion poses for individ- provide a tool to quickly and easily assess the functional
uals with communication problems, we would expect that communication skills of older students. More widespread
adolescents with language disorders would find our persua- adoption of ecologically valid assessment tools, such as
sive protocol challenging and that their pattern of perfor- our persuasive protocol, will help SLPs to document the
mance would differ significantly from the benchmark data. strengths and weaknesses of their students’ functional com-
Future research will test the efficacy of our protocol and munication skills. This, in turn, will lead directly to
the benchmark data when used to assess adolescents who developing functional treatment objectives and, through
are identified with or are suspected of having language repeated language sampling, monitoring progress toward
disorders. achieving those objectives.
Clinical Implications Acknowledgments

SLPs should feel confident that they can quickly and SALT Software, LLC, supported this project by providing
accurately elicit persuasive discourse in accordance with in-kind transcription and gift cards to the participants. We wish
our established protocol. Our study was executed with a to thank the participants who contributed the language samples
high degree of fidelity by school-based SLPs, with no spe- described in this study and the speech-language pathologists who
cial research training. Less than 1% of the samples had a volunteered their time to collect them. They represent the follow-
minor deviation from the protocol, which demonstrated ing public school districts in Wisconsin, United States: Brown
Deer, Madison Metropolitan, Nicolet, Shorewood, Wauwatosa,
how easily this protocol can be used in clinical practice. Our
and West Allis–West Milwaukee. In Australia, in-kind assistance
summary of persuasive discourse measures can be used as was provided by the Department of Education and Training,
benchmarks for clinical evaluations, which will assist with Queensland. The views expressed in this publication do not neces-
interpreting a student’s functional language skills. We sarily represent the views of any of the U.S. school districts or of
shared these data with the SALT Software team, who em- the Department of Education and Training, Queensland.
bedded the normative data within the software to assist
with interpreting individual students’ persuasive measures.
Our factor analysis provided an evidence base supporting References
the use of individual persuasive language samples to de- Australian Curriculum, Assessment and Reporting Authority. (2014).
scribe multiple dimensions of language ability. By captur- Foundation to year 10 curriculum: Language for interaction
ing these distinct dimensions within a functional task, SLPs (ACELA1428). http://www.australiancurriculum.edu.au
have the potential to identify relative strengths and weak- Brimo, D., & Hall-Mills, S. (2019). Adolescents’ production of
nesses across multiple aspects of persuasive discourse, in- complex syntax in spoken and written expository and persua-
cluding both microstructural and macrostructural features sive genres. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 33(3), 237–255.
of language. Together, these data and resources can im- Brinton, B., Fujiki, M., & McKee, L. (1998). Negotiation skills of
children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech,
prove the feasibility of assessing adolescent’s persuasive
Language, and Hearing Research, 41(4), 927–940. https://doi.
discourse skills. org/10.1044/jslhr.4104.927
Since there are not yet published data on children Chapman, S. B., Gamino, J. F., Cook, L. G., Hanten, G., Li, X.,
with communication disorders, SLPs must use their clinical & Levin, H. S. (2006). Impaired discourse gist and working
expertise to judge when to make adaptations to the elicita- memory in children after brain injury. Brain and Language,
tion protocol. For example, students with written language 97(2), 178–188.
difficulties may struggle to complete the planning sheet. Clark, R. A., & Delia, J. G. (1976). The development of func-
Allowing additional time or alternate forms of planning tional persuasive skills in childhood and early adolescence.
(e.g., scribing by the examiner or allowing the student to Child Development, 47(4), 1008–1014.
Clark, R. A., O’Dell, L. L., & Willihnganz, S. (1986). The devel-
use a word processor) should be considered. Because the
opment of compromising as an alternative to persuasion.
samples produced by the typically developing students were Central States Speech Journal, 37(4), 220–224.
relatively short, we anticipate that students with language Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2019). Standards in
disorders will produce even shorter samples, which may, in your state. http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-
itself, be diagnostic. However, if the SLP desires greater state/
productivity to ensure a representative corpus, we recom- Covington, M. A., & McFall, J. D. (2010). Cutting the Gordian
mend elicitation of multiple persuasive samples (e.g., one knot: The moving-average type–token ratio (MATTR). Journal
on a school issue and another on a work issue). of Quantitative Linguistics, 17(2), 94–100.
In sum, SLPs know that functional assessments, such Ebert, K. D., & Scott, C. M. (2014). Relationships between narra-
tive language samples and norm-referenced test scores in lan-
as LSA, are critically important to school-based practice, guage assessments of school-age children. Language, Speech,
yet most SLPs working with adolescents are not regularly and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(4), 337–350. https://doi.
using these types of evidence-based assessments or are not org/10.1044/2014_LSHSS-14-0034
systematically recording and analyzing their samples (e.g., Eisenberg, S. L., & Guo, L.-Y. (2013). Differentiating children
Pavelko et al., 2016; Westerveld & Claessen, 2014). We with and without language impairment based on grammaticality.

Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 44(1), 20–31. adolescents. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools,
https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2012/11-0089) 47(2), 99–112. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_LSHSS-15-0051
Ellis Weismer, S., Evans, J., & Hesketh, L. J. (1999). An examina- Miller, J. F., & Iglesias, A. (2018). Systematic Analysis of Language
tion of verbal working memory capacity in children with spe- Transcripts (SALT, Research Version 18) [Computer software].
cific language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and SALT Software.
Hearing Research, 42(5), 1249–1260. https://doi.org/10.1044/ Moran, C., Kirk, C., & Powell, E. (2012). Spoken persuasive dis-
jslhr.4205.1249 course abilities of adolescents with acquired brain injury.
Felton, M., & Kuhn, D. (2001). The development of argumentive Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 43(3),
discourse skill. Discourse Processes, 32(2–3), 135–153. 264–275. https://doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2011/10-0114)
Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for clini- National Governors Association. (2010). Common Core State
cians and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Standards . National Governors Association Center for Best
Practice, 40(5), 532–538. Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers.
Flavell, J. H. (1968). The development of role-taking and communi- Nippold, M. A. (2007). Later language development: School-age
cation skills in children. Wiley. children, adolescents, and young adults (3rd ed.). Pro-Ed.
Gaulin, C. A., & Campbell, T. F. (1994). Procedure for assessing Nippold, M. A. (2014). Language sampling with adolescents: Impli-
verbal working memory in normal school-age children: Some cations for intervention (2nd ed.). Plural.
preliminary data. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79(1), 55–64. Nippold, M. A. (2016). Later language development: School-age
Ghayoumi, Z., Yadegari, F., Mahmoodi-Bakhtiari, B., Fakharian, E., children, adolescents, and young adults (4th ed.). Pro-Ed.
Rahgozar, M., & Rasouli, M. (2015). Persuasive discourse Nippold, M. A., Hesketh, L. J., Duthie, J. K., & Mansfield, T. C.
impairments in traumatic brain injury. Archives of Trauma (2005). Conversational versus expository discourse: A study of
Research, 4(1), e21473. syntactic development in children, adolescents, and adults.
Gosling, S. D., Rentfrow, P. J., & Swann,W. B., Jr. (2003). A very Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(5),
brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of 1048–1064. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/073)
Research in Personality, 37(6), 504–528. Nippold, M. A., Mansfield, T. C., Billow, J. L., & Tomblin, J. B.
Hay, E., & Moran, C. (2005). Discourse formulation in children (2008). Expository discourse in adolescents with language im-
with closed head injury. American Journal of Speech-Language pairments: Examining syntactic development. American Jour-
Pathology, 14(4), 324–336. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360 nal of Speech-Language Pathology, 17(4), 356–366. https://doi.
(2005/031) org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/07-0049)
Heilmann, J., & Malone, T. O. (2014). The rules of the game: Nippold, M. A., Mansfield, T. C., Billow, J. L., & Tomblin, J. B.
Properties of a database of expository language samples. Lan- (2009). Syntactic development in adolescents with a history of
guage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 45(4), 277–290. language impairments: A follow-up investigation. American
https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_LSHSS-13-0050 Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 18(3), 241–251. https://
Heilmann, J., Miller, J. F., Nockerts, A., & Dunaway, C. (2010). doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2008/08-0022)
Properties of the narrative scoring scheme using narrative Nippold, M. A., Ward-Lonergan, J. M., & Fanning, J. L. (2005).
retells in young school-age children. American Journal of Speech- Persuasive writing in children, adolescents, and adults: A study
Language Pathology, 19(2), 154–166. https://doi.org/10.1044/ of syntactic, semantic, and pragmatic development. Language,
1058-0360(2009/08-0024) Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 36(2), 125–138. https://
Humes, K. R., Jones, N. A., & Ramirez, R. R. (2011). Overview of doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2005/012)
race and Hispanic origin, 2010. https://www.census.gov/prod/ Nussbaum, E. M., & Bendixen, L. D. (2003). Approaching and
cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf avoiding arguments: The role of epistemological beliefs, need
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. for cognition, and extraverted personality traits. Contemporary
(2004). Transition services. https://sites.ed.gov/idea/statute- Educational Psychology, 28(4), 573–595.
chapter-33/subchapter-I/1401/34 Oreg, S., & Sverdlik, N. (2014). Source personality and persua-
Kaderavek, J. N., & Justice, L. M. (2010). Fidelity: An essential siveness: Big Five predispositions to being persuasive and the
component of evidence-based practice in speech-language role of message involvement. Journal of Personality, 82(3),
pathology. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 250–264.
19(4), 369–379. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2010/09- Osana, H. P., & Seymour, J. R. (2004). Critical thinking in pre-
0097) service teachers: A rubric for evaluating argumentation and
Klem, M., Melby-Lervåg, M., Hagtvet, B., Lyster, S.-A. H., statistical reasoning. Educational Research and Evaluation,
Gustafsson, J.-E., & Hulme, C. (2015). Sentence repetition is 10(4–6), 473–498.
a measure of children’s language skills rather than working Pavelko, S. L., Owens, R. E., Jr., Ireland, M., & Hahs-Vaughn,
memory limitations. Developmental Science, 18(1), 146–154. D. L. (2016). Use of language sample analysis by school-based
Kline, S. L., & Clinton, B. L. (1998). Developments in children’s SLPs: Results of a nationwide survey. Language, Speech, and
persuasive message practices. Communication Education, 47(2), Hearing Services in Schools, 47(3), 246–258. https://doi.org/
120–136. 10.1044/2016_LSHSS-15-0044
Krippendorff, K. (2011). Agreement and information in the reli- Peña, E. D., Spaulding, T. J., & Plante, E. (2006). The composi-
ability of coding. Communication Methods and Measures, 5(2), tion of normative groups and diagnostic decision making:
93–112. Shooting ourselves in the foot. American Journal of Speech-
Leadholm, B., & Miller, J. F. (1992). Language sample analysis: The Language Pathology, 15(3), 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1044/
Wisconsin guide. Department of Public Instruction. 1058-0360(2006/023)
Loban, W. (1976). Language development: Kindergarten through Poll, G. H., Betz, S. K., & Miller, C. A. (2010). Identification of
grade twelve. National Council of Teachers of English. clinical markers of specific language impairment in adults.
Miller, J. F., Andriacchi, K., & Nockerts, A. (2016). Using lan- Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 53(2),
guage sample analysis to assess spoken language production in 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0016)

Semel, E., Wiig, E., & Secord, W. A. (2003). Clinical Evaluation Ukrainetz, T. A., & Blomquist, C. (2002). The criterion validity of
of Language Fundamentals–Fourth Edition (CELF-4). four vocabulary tests compared with a language sample. Child
Pearson. Language Teaching and Therapy, 18(1), 59–78.
Soresi, S., Nota, L., Ferrari, L., & Solberg, V. S. (2008). Career Wehmeyer, M., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-determination and
guidance for persons with disabilities. In J. A. Athanasou positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with
& R. Van Esbroeck (Eds.), International handbook of mental retardation or learning disabilities. Exceptional Chil-
career guidance (pp. 405–417). Springer. dren, 63(2), 245–255.
Stevens, L. J., & Bliss, L. S. (1995). Conflict resolution abilities Westerveld, M. F., & Claessen, M. (2014). Clinician survey of lan-
of children with specific language impairment and children guage sampling practices in Australia. International Journal of
with normal language. Journal of Speech and Hearing Speech-Language Pathology, 16(3), 242–249.
Research, 38(3), 599–611. https://doi.org/10.1044/jshr. Westerveld, M. F., & Gillon, G. T. (2010). Profiling oral narrative
3803.599 ability in young school-aged children. International Journal of
Thordardottir, E. T., & Ellis Weismer, S. (2002). Content mazes Speech-Language Pathology, 12(3), 178–189.
and filled pauses in narrative language samples of children Westerveld, M. F., & Moran, C. A. (2011). Expository language
with specific language impairment. Brain and Cognition, 48(2–3), skills of young school-age children. Language, Speech, and
587–592. Hearing Services in Schools, 42(2), 182–193. https://doi.org/
To, C. K. S., Yim, S. F. Y., Lam, G. Y. H., & Iao, L.-S. (2016). 10.1044/0161-1461(2010/10-0044)
Persuasion in Chinese school-age children with and without Westerveld, M. F., & Moran, C. A. (2013). Spoken expository dis-
autism spectrum disorders. Focus on Autism and Other Devel- course of children and adolescents: Retelling versus generation.
opmental Disabilities, 31(3), 231–240. Clinical Linguistics & Phonetics, 27(9), 720–734.
Appendix A
Persuasion Planning Sheet
Student ID ______________________ Date ________________
I am talking to my __________________________ (i.e., principal, boss, government official).
What to talk about when trying to persuade someone
Points What’s covered? Notes
1. Issue Identification What rule or situation do you want changed?

What would you change it to?
2. Supporting Reasons What facts or values or evidence help your side?
Be sure to include how your change would help or benefit the listener
or people the listener cares about.
3. Counterarguments What are some good reasons on the other side?
4. Response to Counterarguments What can you say to knock down or weaken the reasons on the other
side?
What reasons on the other side can you agree with, either in whole
or in part?
5. Compromises If you cannot get your way 100%, what deals would be acceptable so
each side
wins a little?
6. Conclusion Briefly sum up your position:
What do you want?
Why do you want it?
What are the first steps needed to make the change happen?
Please use the reverse of this page for an optional diagram or graphic organizer, or for additional notes.

Appendix B
Persuasive Protocol
Protocol for Eliciting a Persuasive Language Sample
Today I want to find out how well you can persuade. That’s when you talk people into changing their mind and
doing something you want. I’m going to make a recording. If you want, you can listen to it when we’re finished.
I would like you to pick a rule or situation you would like to see changed in your school, job, or community.
Imagine that I am an adult who has the power to make the change that you want. Here are a few examples:
1. Pretend I’m the principal of your school and you want to persuade me to provide money for a special event, or
2. Pretend I’m your boss and you want to persuade me to change your hours or work schedule, or
3. Pretend I’m a government official and you want me to change the law so that taxes are raised or lowered for a
specific purpose.
I expect you to talk for at least a few minutes, so be sure to pick an issue you know and care about. You can
choose an issue from this list [hand list to student] or else pick one of your own.
Allow the student time to review the suggested issues before asking: What issue have you picked?
If the student has difficulty choosing an issue, offer assistance. Review the list together. If a proposed topic is not an
arguable issue (e.g., strawberry ice cream is better than chocolate), encourage the student to pick a different issue. If a proposed
issue is too narrow, encourage the student to modify it. For example, if the student wants to argue for a change to his or
her individual grade in a particular class, suggest that the issue be broadened into an argument for a school-wide change to
grading policy.
Once an appropriate issue has been selected, clarify the intended target of the persuasion, e.g., principal, boss, government
official, by asking, “Who will you be trying to persuade?”
If there is a mismatch between the issue and the authority figure, help the student to resolve the problem. For example, if a
student wishes to convince a boss to raise the minimum wage, help the student understand that this argument is best directed
toward a government official.
Once a match has been established between issue and authority figure, proceed to the planning directions:
Talk to me as if I’m your (name the appropriate authority [e.g., principal, boss, senator]) and tell me everything you can
to persuade me. To do your best job, you’ll first need to organize your thoughts. Here’s a list of points you’ll need to cover to
make a complete argument [hand the student a copy of the planning sheet]. Please take the next few minutes to plan by taking
notes in these blank spaces [point to the empty boxes in the column on the right]. But don’t waste time writing sentences. Just
jot down some key words to remind you of what you want to say. If you don’t want to take notes, you can use the reverse side
to draw a diagram or make a graphic organizer. Do you have any questions? Go ahead and start planning.
Skill at reading is not being assessed. Therefore, if the student appears to be having any difficulty understanding the
planning sheet, read the text aloud to the student.
Allow enough time for the student to write something for each point on the planning sheet or to create a diagram or
graphic organizer. Verify that the student has done some planning for each point. If not, prompt with, “Please do some planning
for (name[s] of omitted point[s]).” When I turn on the recorder, you will be doing all the talking. I’m going to listen to what you
have to say. Tell me everything you can think of. It’s OK to look at your planning sheet to remind yourself of what you want to
say. Feel free to add to what you’ve written. Remember: I expect you to talk for as long as you can.
Turn on recording device and have the student begin speaking. Do not engage the student in a debate. Instead, limit
your encouragement to affirmations such as: Uh-huh, mhm, I see, OK, ah, etc.
If the student finishes speaking before several minutes has elapsed or has not discussed one or more points on the
planning sheet, prompt with:
Is there anything else you can tell me?
If the student still has not addressed all the points on the planning sheet, prompt with:
“What about (name[s] of omitted point[s])?”
When the student has finished speaking, turn off the recorder. Review the recording for quality before releasing the
student. If there’s time, offer to let the student listen to the recording.

Appendix C
Suggested Issues List
Changing the time school starts in the morning

Allowing students to leave campus during the school day without special permission
Requiring students to do graded homework
Requiring students to take foreign language classes
Allowing teachers to socialize with students on social networks such as Facebook, Twitter, Snapchat, Instagram, etc.
Including grades in physical education classes in students’ grade point average
Allowing students to listen to their music using headphones during free periods
Changing the access teenagers have to entertainment that is violent or sexually suggestive; entertainment includes movies, music, and
video games
Requiring school uniforms or a dress code for students
Awarding cash or other incentives to students who earn good grades
Replacing traditional textbooks with notebook computers or digital materials
Requiring cities to provide free wireless Internet access in public spaces
Requiring people to get a license in order to become parents
Allowing alternatives to jail, such as counseling or public service, for convicted criminals
Requiring colleges to pay their student athletes a salary for playing
Requiring drug tests for professional athletes
Allowing employers to require drug tests as part of their hiring procedure
Requiring workers to pay for their own work uniforms or equipment
Raising the minimum wage
Changing the minimum age for voting, drinking, driving, or holding a job
Other: Topic of your choice

Appendix D
Persuasive Scoring Scheme
Characteristic Proficient/advanced (5) Satisfactory/adequate (3) Minimal/immature (1)
Issue Identification • Existing rule or situation is clearly • Existing rule or situation can • Speaker launches into
and Desired Change understood before supporting be discerned; may require persuasion with no mention
reasons are stated shared knowledge of existing rule or situation
• Desired change is clearly stated • Desired change can be discerned • Desired change is difficult to
determine
Supporting Reasons • Reason(s) are comprehensive; • One or more reasons are offered • Reason(s) are confusing or
include detail to support desired change vague
• Benefit(s) to others are clearly • Benefit(s) to others are unclear • Significant/obvious reason(s)
understood or omitted are not stated
• Reason(s) are not plausible;
do not support change
Other Point of View • Other point(s) of view are clearly • Other point(s) of view are • Other point(s) of view are
(Counterarguments) explained; include detail acknowledged OR unclear or omitted
• Includes language to support or • Dismissive of other point(s)
refute other point of view of view
Compromises • Includes language, with some • Compromise(s) are acknowledged • Compromises are unclear or
detail, to support or refute OR omitted
compromising • Dismissive of compromising
Conclusion • Desired change is clearly • Desired change is restated • Summary statement(s) are
restated/summarized • One or more supporting reasons omitted
• Arguments are clearly restated/ are restated • Unclear to listener that the
summarized • Ending is inferred and/or lacks persuasion task is
• Concludes using language such transition to conclusion (e.g., completed
as, “to conclude,” “therefore,” “And that’s all,” “that’s it,”
“and so,” “in sum,” etc. “I’m done”)
• First step(s) for change are
mentioned
Cohesion • Points are fully covered before • Points are covered, but lack • Points are not fully covered
moving on to another organization before moving onto another
• Transitions between points are • Transitions between points are • Abrupt transitions between
smooth/clear using mature acceptable points
language • Referencing is adequate • Referents are unclear, hard to
• Referents are clear • Listener can follow the argument follow
• Listener can easily follow the with some effort • Argument is difficult to follow
argument
Effectiveness • Argument is extremely compelling • Argument is compelling • Argument is minimally or not
• Argument is entirely plausible • Argument is plausible compelling
• Argument is well stated • Argument requires little to no • Argument is not plausible
• Mature language is used clarification • Language is unclear
• Minimal errors of syntax/form • Acceptable syntax/form • Errors of syntax/form may be
• Supported points well • Speaker’s delivery is clear; not prevalent
• Speaker’s delivery is passionate necessarily passionate • Speaker’s delivery lacks effort;
• Speaker engages listener • Effort to persuade is evident not passionate
• Speaker makes some attempt • Speaker makes no attempt to
to engage listener engage listener
• Speaker uses inappropriate/
immature tone
Note. Scoring: Each characteristic receives a scaled score of 0–5. Proficient/advanced = 5, Satisfactory/adequate = 3, Minimal/immature = 1.
Scores in between, 2 and 4, are undefined; use judgment. Significant factual errors reduce the score for that topic. Scores of 0, N/A, are
defined below. A composite is scored by adding the total of the characteristic scores. Highest score = 35. A score of 0 is given for student
errors (e.g., not covering topic, not completing/refusing task, student unintelligibility, abandoned utterances). A score of N/A (nonapplicable) is
given for mechanical/examiner/operator errors (e.g., interference from background noise, issues with recording [cutoffs, interruptions], examiner
not following protocol, examiner asking overly specific or leading questions rather than open-ended questions or prompts).

Reproduced with permission of copyright owner. Further reproduction
prohibited without permission.

Heilmann, 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heilmann, 2019

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Heilmann, 2019

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

LSHSS

Properties of Spoken Persuasive

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Proquest on 08/09/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Testing the Properties of Discourse Measures

Heilmann et al.: Persuasion in Adolescents 443

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Proquest on 08/09/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Heilmann et al.: Persuasion in Adolescents 445

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Proquest on 08/09/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Heilmann et al.: Persuasion in Adolescents 447

Table 1. Persuasive discourse performance broken down by grade.

Variable Grade MLCU Clausal density MATTR % Mazes % Errors PSS

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Proquest on 08/09/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Variable MLUw Clausal density MATTR % Mazes PSS % Errors

Recalling Sentences −.06 −.05 .07 .17 .42** −.49**

Heilmann et al.: Persuasion in Adolescents 449

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Proquest on 08/09/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Clinical Implications Acknowledgments

Heilmann et al.: Persuasion in Adolescents 451

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Proquest on 08/09/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

I am talking to my __________________________ (i.e., principal, boss, government official).

What to talk about when trying to persuade someone

Points What’s covered? Notes

1. Issue Identification What rule or situation do you want changed?

Heilmann et al.: Persuasion in Adolescents 453

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Proquest on 08/09/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

Changing the time school starts in the morning

Heilmann et al.: Persuasion in Adolescents 455

Characteristic Proficient/advanced (5) Satisfactory/adequate (3) Minimal/immature (1)

Downloaded from: https://pubs.asha.org Proquest on 08/09/2020, Terms of Use: https://pubs.asha.org/pubs/rights_and_permissions

You might also like

Recalling Sentences −.06 −.05 .07 .17 .42 −.49