Language sample analysis (LSA) represents a venerated and ecologically valid method for diagnosing, identifying goals, and measuring progress in children with developmental language disorder (DLD). With many LSA measures available, previous research offers limited guidance on which measures should be prioritized based on their robust reliability, validity, and clinical utility. This dissertation examined psychometric properties and clinical use of selected LSA measures within four dominant LSA frameworks: Computerized Language Analysis (CLAN), Systematic Analysis of Language Transcription (SALT), Sampling Utterances and Grammatical Analysis Revised (SUGAR), and finite verb morphology composite (FVMC), using three related individual studies. Study 1 examined the reliability of LSA measures in shorter, 25- and 50-utterance sample cuts from children aged 5-7 years with and without DLD. Study 1 results showed acceptable relative reliability ([rho] [greater than or equal to] 0.85) in 50-utterance samples compared to 100-utterance samples for 22 of 30 LSA measures. Using the same study sample, Study 2 examined the diagnostic accuracy of those 22 LSA measures for identifying cases of DLD using four DLD reference standards, including a standardized omnibus language test, clinical markers, a parent checklist, and clinical identification. Study 2 results showed acceptable diagnostic accuracy (LR+ [greater than or equal to]4 and LR- [less than or equal to]0.4 with at least two of four DLD reference standards) for Developmental sentence scoring (DSS) sentence points for 5-year-olds, the SALT subordination index, omissions and errors, and percent grammatical utterances (PGU) for 6-year-olds, and MLUCLAN and MLUSUGAR for 7-year-olds. Study 3 examined the clinical use of LSA measures using survey data from practicing SLPs in the United States (n = 337). Results indicated 60% of SLPs used LSA in the past year. LSA skill level, training, and serving preschool or elementary school children predicted LSA use, while workplace, caseload, and years of experience were not significant predictors. Most SLPs reported using self-designed LSA protocols (62%), followed by SALT (23%), and SUGAR (12%) protocols. SLPs who did not use LSA reported limited time (74%), limited resources (59%), and limited expertise (41%) as barriers and identified additional training on LSA computer programs (52%) and access to automatic speech recognition programs (49%) as facilitators to their adoption of LSA. [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page: http://bibliotheek.ehb.be:2222/en-US/products/dissertations/individuals.shtml.]