Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-4rdpn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-07T22:30:17.877Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reliability and validity of the Computerized Comprehension Task (CCT): data from American English and Mexican Spanish infants*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 January 2008

MARGARET FRIEND  and
MELANIE KEPLINGER
MARGARET FRIEND*
Affiliation:
San Diego State University
MELANIE KEPLINGER
Affiliation:
San Diego State University
*
Address for correspondence: Margaret Friend, PhD, San Diego State University, 6363 Alvarado Ct, Ste. 103, San Diego, California 92103, United States.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Early language comprehension may be one of the most important predictors of developmental risk. The need for performance-based assessment is predicated on limitations identified in the exclusive use of parent report and on the need for a performance measure with which to assess the convergent validity of parent report of comprehension. Child performance data require the development of procedures to facilitate infant attention and compliance. Forty infants (20 at 1 ; 4 and 20 at 1 ; 8) acquiring English completed a standard picture book task and the same task was administered on a touch-sensitive screen. The computerized task significantly improved task attention, compliance and performance. Reliability was high, indicating that infants were not responding randomly. Convergent validity with parent report and 4-month stability was substantial. Preliminary data extending this approach to Mexican-Spanish are presented. Results are discussed in terms of the promise of this technique for clinical and research settings and the potential influences of cultural factors on performance.

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 35 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 77 - 98
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bates, E. (1993). Comprehension and production in early language development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 58 (3–4, Serial No. 233).CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, P. S. & Fenson, L. (1996). Lexical development norms for young children. Behavioral Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers 28, 125–27.Google Scholar
Dale, P. S. & Goodman, J. C. (2005). Commonality and individual differences in vocabulary growth. In Tomasello, M. and Slobin, D. I. (eds) Beyond nature-nurture: Essays in honor of Elizabeth Bates, 41–78. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
Feldman, H. M., Dollaghan, C. A., Campbell, T. F., Kurs-Lasky, M., Janosky, J. E. & Paradise, J. L. (2000). Measurement properties of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories at ages one and two years. Child Development 71, 310–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenson, L., Bates, E., Dale, P., Goodman, J., Reznick, S. J. & Thal, D. (2000). Measuring variability in early child language: Don't shoot the messenger. Child Development 71, 323–28.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. J. & Pethick, S. J. (1994). Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 59 (5, Serial No. 242).Google Scholar
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J. P., Pethik, S. & Reilly, J. S. (1993). The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories: User's Gude and Technical Manual. San Diego: Singular.Google Scholar
Fernald, A., Pinto, J. P., Swingley, D. L., Weinberg, A. and McRoberts, G. W. (2001). Rapid gains in speed of verbal processing by infants in the 2nd year. In Tomasello, M. and Bates, E. (eds) Language development: The essential readings. Essential readings in developmental psychology, 49–56. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishers.Google Scholar
Friend, M. & Keplinger, M. (2003). An infant-based assessment of early lexicon acquisition. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers 35(2), 302–309.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Cauley, K. M. & Gordon, L. (1987). The eyes have it: Lexical and syntactic comprehension in a new paradigm. Journal of Child Language 14, 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heilman, J., Weismer, S. E., Evans, J. & Hollar, C. (2005). Utility of the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory in identifying language abilities of late-talking and typically developing toddlers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 14, 40–51.Google Scholar
Hirsh-Pasek, K. & Golinkoff, R. M. (1996). The intermodal preferential looking paradigm: A window onto emerging language comprehension. In McDaniel, D., McKee, C. & Cairns, H. S. (eds) Methods for Assessing Children's Syntax, 105–124. Massachusetts: The Massachusetts Institute of Technology Press.Google Scholar
Hollich, G. J., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Golinkoff, R. M., Brand, R. J., Brown, E., Chung, H. L., Hennon, E. & Rocroi, C. (2000). Breaking the language barrier: An emergentist coalition model for the origins of word learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 65 (3, Serial No. 262).Google Scholar
Jackson-Maldonado, D., Thal, D. J., Fenson, L., Marchman, V. A., Newton, T. & Conboy, B. (2003). MacArthur Inventarios del Dessarrollo de Habilidades Comunicativas: User's Guide and Technical Manual. Baltimore: Brooks.Google Scholar
Kaler, S. R. & Kopp, C. B. (1990). Compliance and comprehension in very young toddlers. Child Development 61, 1997–2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klee, T., Pearce, K. & Carson, D. K. (2000). Improving the positive predictive value of screening for developmental language delay. Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research 43, 821–33.Google Scholar
Kohnert, K. J. & Bates, E. (2002). Balancing bilinguals II: Lexical comprehension and cognitive processing in children learning Spanish and English. Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research 45, 347–59.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchman, V. A. & Martinez-Sussman, C. (2002). Concurrent validity of caregiver/parent report measures of language for children who are learning both English and Spanish. Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research 45, 983–87.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McDonough, L. (2002). Basic-level nouns: first learned but misunderstood. Journal of Child Language 29, 357–77.Google Scholar
Meints, K., Plunkett, K. & Harris, P. L. (1999). When does an ostrich become a bird? The role of typicality in early word comprehension. Developmental Psychology 35, 1072–78.Google Scholar
Mervis, C. B. (1987). Child-basic object categories and early lexical development. In Neisser, U. (ed.) Concepts and Conceptual Development, 201–233. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mervis, C. B. & Canada, K. (1983). On the existence of competence errors in comprehension: A reply to Fremgen & Fay and Chapman & Thomson. Journal of Child Language 10, 431–40.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patterson, J. L. (2004). Comparing bilingual and monolingual toddlers' expressive vocabulary size: Revisiting Rescorla and Achenbach (2002). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 47, 1213–15.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rescorla, L. & Achenbach, T. M. (2002). Use of the Language Development Survey (LDS) in a national probability sample of children 18 to 35 months old. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 45, 733–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, L. & Alley, A. (2001). Validation of the Language Development Survey (LDS): A parent report tool for identifying language delay in toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44, 434–45.Google Scholar
Rescorla, L., Mirak, J. & Singh, L. (2000). Vocabulary growth in late talkers: Lexical development from 2 ; 0 to 3 ; 0. Journal of Child Language 27, 293–311.Google Scholar
Ring, E. D. & Fenson, L. (2000). The correspondence between parent report and child performance for receptive and expressive vocabulary beyond infancy. First Language 20, 141–59.Google Scholar
Stiles, J. (1994). On the nature of informant judgements in inventory measures: And so what is it you want to know? Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Language 59(5), 180–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thal, D. (2005). Early detection of risk for language impairment: what are the best strategies? Paper presented at Update on Specific Language Impairment, Urbino, Italy, April.Google Scholar
Thal, D. & Friend, M. (2005). Prediction of language development at 20-months from parent report and child performance at 16-months of age. In Friend, M. (Chair), Picture recognition approaches to comprehension: Neuroscience, cross-linguistic, and atypical development perspectives, the X. International Association for the Study of Child Language, Berlin, Germany, July.Google Scholar
Thal, D., Jackson-Maldonado, D. & Acosta, D. (2000). Validity of a parent-report measure of vocabulary and grammar for Spanish-speaking toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, & Hearing Research 43, 1087–1100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tomasello, M. & Mervis, C. B. (1994). The instrument is great, but measuring comprehension is still a problem. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 59(5), 174–79.Google Scholar
Umbel, V. M., Pearson, B. Z., Fernandez, M. C. & Oller, D. K. (1992). Measuring bilingual children's receptive vocabularies. Child Development 64, 1012–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoder, P. J., Warren, S. F. & Biggar, H. A. (1997). Stability of maternal reports of lexical comprehension in very young children with developmental delays. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 6, 59–64.Google Scholar