Morehead & Ingram (1973) Revisited The finding in Morehead and Ingram (1973) that children with a language impairment do better in the use of inflectional morphology than MLU-matched typically developing children has been in marked contrast to several subsequent studies that have found the opposite relationship (cf. review in Leonard, 1998). This research note presents ... Research Note
Research Note  |   June 01, 2002
Morehead & Ingram (1973) Revisited
 
Author Affiliations & Notes
  • David Ingram, PhD
    Arizona State University Tempe
  • Donald Morehead
    San Francisco
  • Contact author: David Ingram, PhD, Department of Speech and Hearing Science, P.O. Box 870102, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-0102.
    Contact author: David Ingram, PhD, Department of Speech and Hearing Science, P.O. Box 870102, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-0102.×
  • Corresponding author: E-mail: david.ingram@asu.edu
Article Information
Development / Language Disorders / Language / Research Note
Research Note   |   June 01, 2002
Morehead & Ingram (1973) Revisited
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, June 2002, Vol. 45, 559-563. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2002/044)
History: Received April 26, 2001 , Accepted January 14, 2002
 
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, June 2002, Vol. 45, 559-563. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2002/044)
History: Received April 26, 2001; Accepted January 14, 2002
Web of Science® Times Cited: 6

The finding in Morehead and Ingram (1973) that children with a language impairment do better in the use of inflectional morphology than MLU-matched typically developing children has been in marked contrast to several subsequent studies that have found the opposite relationship (cf. review in Leonard, 1998). This research note presents a reanalysis of a subset of the original Morehead and Ingram data in an attempt to reconcile these contradictory findings. The reanalysis revealed that the advantage on inflectional morphology for children with language impairment was only on the progressive suffix, not on plural and possessive or on the verbal morphemes third-person present tense and past tense. The results of the reanalysis are in line with more recent research (e.g., Rice, Wexler, & Cleave, 1995). The resolution of these discrepant results highlights the critical roles that methodological issues play—specifically, how subjects are matched on MLU, how inflectional morphology is measured, and the selection of subjects with regard to age.

Order a Subscription
Pay Per View
Entire Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research content & archive
24-hour access
This Article
24-hour access