Puzzle, bulmaca, or câu đố lắp hình: A comparison of mono- and multilingual Australian English-speaking children's performance on the OZI-SF.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Kate Jones, Elise Baker, Lynn Kemp, Caroline Jones
{"title":"Puzzle, bulmaca, or câu đố lắp hình: A comparison of mono- and multilingual Australian English-speaking children's performance on the OZI-SF.","authors":"Kate Jones, Elise Baker, Lynn Kemp, Caroline Jones","doi":"10.1080/17549507.2025.2538610","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Purpose: </strong>This study compared performance of multilingual and monolingual children on the OZI-Short Form (a parent-report checklist for early communication from 12-30 months) with reference to receptive and expressive vocabulary, gestures, and communicative games/routines. Scores for three semantic subcategories (animals, clothing, food and drink) were compared between cohorts to assess for any evidence of cultural bias.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Parents of children (<i>n</i> = 552) aged 10.5 to 31.5 months completed the OZI-SF. Total concept scores were calculated. Regression analyses were performed to compare performance between cohorts.</p><p><strong>Result: </strong>No differences between cohorts for three summary scores: Receptive vocabulary, gestures, and games/routines. Differences were found in expressive vocabulary, with multilingual children scoring lower than monolingual children. For semantic categories, there were differences receptively for 'food and drink', and expressively for 'food and drink' and 'clothing', with multilingual children scoring lower. No differences were found for 'animals'.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>The use of total concept scores on the OZI-SF revealed consistent performance between cohorts on receptive and non-verbal scores suggesting clinical confidence in these aspects of the OZI-SF. Differences in performance on expressive measures encourage clinical caution. Further research is needed on the clinical utility of vocabulary screening tools acknowledging the cultural sensitivity of semantic categories.</p>","PeriodicalId":49047,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","volume":" ","pages":"1-13"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-08-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/17549507.2025.2538610","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Purpose: This study compared performance of multilingual and monolingual children on the OZI-Short Form (a parent-report checklist for early communication from 12-30 months) with reference to receptive and expressive vocabulary, gestures, and communicative games/routines. Scores for three semantic subcategories (animals, clothing, food and drink) were compared between cohorts to assess for any evidence of cultural bias.

Method: Parents of children (n = 552) aged 10.5 to 31.5 months completed the OZI-SF. Total concept scores were calculated. Regression analyses were performed to compare performance between cohorts.

Result: No differences between cohorts for three summary scores: Receptive vocabulary, gestures, and games/routines. Differences were found in expressive vocabulary, with multilingual children scoring lower than monolingual children. For semantic categories, there were differences receptively for 'food and drink', and expressively for 'food and drink' and 'clothing', with multilingual children scoring lower. No differences were found for 'animals'.

Conclusion: The use of total concept scores on the OZI-SF revealed consistent performance between cohorts on receptive and non-verbal scores suggesting clinical confidence in these aspects of the OZI-SF. Differences in performance on expressive measures encourage clinical caution. Further research is needed on the clinical utility of vocabulary screening tools acknowledging the cultural sensitivity of semantic categories.

Puzzle, bulmaca, or c đố lắp hình:单语言和多语言澳大利亚英语儿童在OZI-SF上的表现比较。
目的:本研究比较了多语儿童和单语儿童在OZI-Short Form(12-30个月早期沟通的家长报告清单)上的表现,包括接受性和表达性词汇、手势和交流游戏/例程。三个语义子类(动物,衣服,食物和饮料)的得分在队列之间进行比较,以评估任何文化偏见的证据。方法:年龄10.5 ~ 31.5月龄患儿(n = 552)的家长完成OZI-SF。计算总概念得分。进行回归分析以比较队列之间的表现。结果:三个总结性得分:接受性词汇,手势和游戏/例程在队列之间没有差异。在表达性词汇方面存在差异,多语儿童得分低于单语儿童。在语义范畴方面,对“食物和饮料”的接受程度存在差异,对“食物和饮料”和“衣服”的表达程度存在差异,多语言儿童得分较低。在“动物”中没有发现差异。结论:在OZI-SF上使用总概念评分显示了队列之间在接受性和非言语得分上的一致表现,表明临床对OZI-SF的这些方面有信心。表现性测量的表现差异鼓励临床谨慎。考虑到语义范畴的文化敏感性,词汇筛选工具的临床应用还需要进一步的研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology
International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.10
自引率
16.70%
发文量
73
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal of Speech-Language Pathology is an international journal which promotes discussion on a broad range of current clinical and theoretical issues. Submissions may include experimental, review and theoretical discussion papers, with studies from either quantitative and/or qualitative frameworks. Articles may relate to any area of child or adult communication or dysphagia, furthering knowledge on issues related to etiology, assessment, diagnosis, intervention, or theoretical frameworks. Articles can be accompanied by supplementary audio and video files that will be uploaded to the journal’s website. Special issues on contemporary topics are published at least once a year. A scientific forum is included in many issues, where a topic is debated by invited international experts.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信