{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02668213457076566, 'fraction_numerical': 0.013921113689095127, 'mean_word_length': 4.831081081081081, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
A closer look at MLU: What does it really measure?

Despite the common use of mean length of utterance (MLU) as a diagnostic measure, what it actually reflects in terms of linguistic knowledge is relatively unclear. This study explored the extent to which variance in MLU could be accounted for by a measure of expressive vocabulary and a measure of morphosyntax in a group of 44 typically‐developing children, ages 28–37 months. Regression techniques were employed to predict MLU from number of different words (NDW) and a tense accuracy composite (TAC). Depending on whether the variable was acting alone or in concert with the other, TAC accounted for 23% or none of the variance in MLU, while NDW accounted for 51% or 28%. We offer three potential explanations for the observed association between MLU and NDW, none of which necessarily precludes the others.