↓ Skip to main content

Correlation and agreement between Language ENvironment Analysis (lena™) and manual transcription for Dutch natural language recordings

Overview of attention for article published in Behavior Research Methods, September 2017
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user

Citations

dimensions_citation
36 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
74 Mendeley
Title
Correlation and agreement between Language ENvironment Analysis (lena™) and manual transcription for Dutch natural language recordings
Published in
Behavior Research Methods, September 2017
DOI 10.3758/s13428-017-0960-0
Pubmed ID
Authors

Tobias Busch, Anouk Sangen, Filiep Vanpoucke, Astrid van Wieringen

Abstract

The Language ENvironment Analysis system (LENA™) automatically analyzes the natural sound environments of children. Among other things, it estimates the amounts of adult words (AWC), child vocalizations (CV), conversational turns (CT), and electronic media (TV) that a child is exposed to. To assess LENA's reliability, we compared it to manual transcription. Specifically, we calculated the correlation and agreement between the LENA estimates and manual counts for 48 five-min audio samples. These samples were selected from eight day-long recordings of six Dutch-speaking children (ages 2-5). The correlations were strong for AWC, r =  . 87, and CV, r =  . 77, and comparatively low for CT, r =  . 52, and TV, r =  . 50. However, the agreement analysis revealed a constant bias in AWC counts, and proportional biases for CV and CT (i.e., the bias varied with the values for CV and CT). Agreement for detecting electronic media was poor. Moreover, the limits of agreement were wide for all four metrics. That is, the differences between LENA and the manual transcriptions for individual audio samples varied widely around the mean difference. This variation could indicate that LENA was affected by differences between the samples that did not equally affect the human transcribers. The disagreements and biases cast doubt on the comparability of LENA measurements across families and time, which is crucial for using LENA in research. Our sample is too small to conclude within which limits LENA's measurements are comparable, but it seems advisable to be cautious of factors that could systematically bias LENA's performance and thereby create confounds.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 74 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 74 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 17 23%
Researcher 16 22%
Student > Master 5 7%
Student > Postgraduate 3 4%
Professor 3 4%
Other 5 7%
Unknown 25 34%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 16 22%
Neuroscience 8 11%
Social Sciences 4 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 3 4%
Engineering 3 4%
Other 10 14%
Unknown 30 41%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 September 2018.
All research outputs
#22,764,772
of 25,382,440 outputs
Outputs from Behavior Research Methods
#2,100
of 2,526 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#286,455
of 325,640 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Behavior Research Methods
#33
of 37 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,382,440 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,526 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.2. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 325,640 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 37 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 1st percentile – i.e., 1% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.