The use of Language ENvironment Analysis in autism research: A systematic review.

The review could not combine study results because designs, data collection, and reporting varied across included studies. Twenty-three studies did not report average recording length or sampling procedure, so it is unclear how stable those estimates were. Sixteen studies did not report race and/or sex, so the included samples may not represent all autistic individuals. The review only coded strengths and limitations that authors explicitly stated, so unreported views may be missing. Some authors had published included LENA studies, although they were not involved in coding or synthesizing those papers. The evidence on validity of LENA variables in autistic and high likelihood children is sparse.

J.E.M., J.I.F., and M.S. had published work using LENA in autistic populations that were included in this review. They were not involved in coding or synthesis of results pertaining to their own papers. The remaining authors declared no conflicts. Funding came from training grants from the US Department of Education and the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Do not treat LENA child vocalization counts as a stand-alone measure of language ability. The review found that agreement between human coding and LENA output ranged from 23% to 87%, and authors warned against using LENA with minimally verbal children or children with frequent echolalia.