家长对 3-6 岁波兰儿童词汇量的报告:可靠但无效。

IF 1.5 3区 医学 Q2 AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY
Magdalena Łuniewska, Magdalena Krysztofiak, Ewa Haman
{"title":"家长对 3-6 岁波兰儿童词汇量的报告:可靠但无效。","authors":"Magdalena Łuniewska,&nbsp;Magdalena Krysztofiak,&nbsp;Ewa Haman","doi":"10.1111/1460-6984.13101","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Background</h3>\n \n <p>For over 30 years, parental reports have been used to study the vocabulary of children under 4 years of age. Research exploring parental checklists as a measure of vocabulary in older children is very limited. Typically, authors of parental checklists report the reliability of the developed tools but do not explore validity in terms of the agreement between parental assessments and the children's actual word knowledge.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Aims</h3>\n \n <p>We aimed to explore the reliability and validity of a parental checklist for assessing vocabulary in children aged between 3 and 6 years. Furthermore, we aimed to evaluate the agreement between indirect (parental checklist) and direct (picture naming and picture recognition tasks) assessments of children's vocabulary.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods and Procedures</h3>\n \n <p>A group of 94 typically developing monolingual Polish-speaking children aged between 3 and 6 years were first directly tested onsite with picture naming and picture recognition tasks (Cross-Linguistic Lexical Tasks). Subsequently, the participants’ parents completed an online checklist containing the same set of 128 items and marked all the words that they had ever heard in their child's spontaneous speech.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Outcomes and Results</h3>\n \n <p>The parental checklist demonstrated very high internal consistency. The scores of the parental checklist and vocabulary tasks were moderately correlated. We compared the total number of words marked by parents and the number of items correctly identified by children in the picture naming and picture recognition tasks. In picture naming, we found no difference between the children's scores and the number of words selected by parents. However, parents selected significantly fewer words than children correctly recognised in the picture recognition task. When data were analysed at the level of individual items (i.e., whether parents selected exactly the same items that children answered correctly), we found that the level of agreement was low. The level of agreement correlated negatively with the children's vocabulary; that is, the more words a child knew, the lower the agreement between the direct measure and the parental checklist.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusions and Implications</h3>\n \n <p>Parental checklists should be used with caution in children aged between 3 and 6 years, especially if the assessed children have a large vocabulary and if item analysis is planned. Such checklists may be of more use in younger children or in children with limited vocabulary.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS</h3>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> What is already known on the subject</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>Parental checklists are commonly used to assess the vocabulary of children younger than 4 years of age. Previous research has indicated that parental checklists are reliable in terms of internal consistency and valid in terms of predictive and convergent validity.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> What this paper adds to the existing knowledge</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>This study introduces a parental checklist designed for assessing the vocabulary of monolingual Polish-speaking children aged between 3 and 6 years. Statistical analyses reveal that while the parental checklist exhibits high reliability, and the scores on the checklist correlate with direct measures of vocabulary, the agreement between parental reports and direct vocabulary measures (i.e., validity) is notably low, particularly when examining individual test items.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> What are the clinical implications of this work?</h3>\n \n <div>\n <ul>\n \n <li>These findings underscore the importance of exercising caution when using parental vocabulary checklists with children aged between 3 and 6 years. These checklists can serve as a replacement for direct vocabulary tests only when the general/overall score is needed. However, when specific words are the subject of interest, parental reports may not be a valid measure.</li>\n </ul>\n </div>\n </section>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":49182,"journal":{"name":"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders","volume":"59 6","pages":"2483-2496"},"PeriodicalIF":1.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1460-6984.13101","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Parental report of vocabulary in 3- to 6-year-old Polish children: Reliable but not valid\",\"authors\":\"Magdalena Łuniewska,&nbsp;Magdalena Krysztofiak,&nbsp;Ewa Haman\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1460-6984.13101\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div>\\n \\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Background</h3>\\n \\n <p>For over 30 years, parental reports have been used to study the vocabulary of children under 4 years of age. Research exploring parental checklists as a measure of vocabulary in older children is very limited. Typically, authors of parental checklists report the reliability of the developed tools but do not explore validity in terms of the agreement between parental assessments and the children's actual word knowledge.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Aims</h3>\\n \\n <p>We aimed to explore the reliability and validity of a parental checklist for assessing vocabulary in children aged between 3 and 6 years. Furthermore, we aimed to evaluate the agreement between indirect (parental checklist) and direct (picture naming and picture recognition tasks) assessments of children's vocabulary.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Methods and Procedures</h3>\\n \\n <p>A group of 94 typically developing monolingual Polish-speaking children aged between 3 and 6 years were first directly tested onsite with picture naming and picture recognition tasks (Cross-Linguistic Lexical Tasks). Subsequently, the participants’ parents completed an online checklist containing the same set of 128 items and marked all the words that they had ever heard in their child's spontaneous speech.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Outcomes and Results</h3>\\n \\n <p>The parental checklist demonstrated very high internal consistency. The scores of the parental checklist and vocabulary tasks were moderately correlated. We compared the total number of words marked by parents and the number of items correctly identified by children in the picture naming and picture recognition tasks. In picture naming, we found no difference between the children's scores and the number of words selected by parents. However, parents selected significantly fewer words than children correctly recognised in the picture recognition task. When data were analysed at the level of individual items (i.e., whether parents selected exactly the same items that children answered correctly), we found that the level of agreement was low. The level of agreement correlated negatively with the children's vocabulary; that is, the more words a child knew, the lower the agreement between the direct measure and the parental checklist.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> Conclusions and Implications</h3>\\n \\n <p>Parental checklists should be used with caution in children aged between 3 and 6 years, especially if the assessed children have a large vocabulary and if item analysis is planned. Such checklists may be of more use in younger children or in children with limited vocabulary.</p>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS</h3>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> What is already known on the subject</h3>\\n \\n <div>\\n <ul>\\n \\n <li>Parental checklists are commonly used to assess the vocabulary of children younger than 4 years of age. Previous research has indicated that parental checklists are reliable in terms of internal consistency and valid in terms of predictive and convergent validity.</li>\\n </ul>\\n </div>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> What this paper adds to the existing knowledge</h3>\\n \\n <div>\\n <ul>\\n \\n <li>This study introduces a parental checklist designed for assessing the vocabulary of monolingual Polish-speaking children aged between 3 and 6 years. Statistical analyses reveal that while the parental checklist exhibits high reliability, and the scores on the checklist correlate with direct measures of vocabulary, the agreement between parental reports and direct vocabulary measures (i.e., validity) is notably low, particularly when examining individual test items.</li>\\n </ul>\\n </div>\\n </section>\\n \\n <section>\\n \\n <h3> What are the clinical implications of this work?</h3>\\n \\n <div>\\n <ul>\\n \\n <li>These findings underscore the importance of exercising caution when using parental vocabulary checklists with children aged between 3 and 6 years. These checklists can serve as a replacement for direct vocabulary tests only when the general/overall score is needed. However, when specific words are the subject of interest, parental reports may not be a valid measure.</li>\\n </ul>\\n </div>\\n </section>\\n </section>\\n </div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":49182,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders\",\"volume\":\"59 6\",\"pages\":\"2483-2496\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-08-09\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/1460-6984.13101\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1460-6984.13101\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1460-6984.13101","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:30 多年来,家长报告一直被用来研究 4 岁以下儿童的词汇量。将家长核对表作为较大儿童词汇量测量方法的研究非常有限。通常情况下,家长核对表的作者会报告所开发工具的可靠性,但不会从家长评估与儿童实际词汇知识之间的一致性角度探讨其有效性。目的:我们旨在探讨家长核对表的可靠性和有效性,以评估 3 至 6 岁儿童的词汇量。此外,我们还旨在评估对儿童词汇量的间接评估(父母检查表)与直接评估(图片命名和图片识别任务)之间的一致性:我们首先对 94 名年龄在 3-6 岁之间、发育典型的单语波兰语儿童进行了图片命名和图片识别任务(跨语言词汇任务)的现场直接测试。随后,参与者的父母填写了一份在线核对表,该核对表包含同样的 128 个项目,并标注了他们在孩子的自发言语中听到过的所有单词:家长核对表的内部一致性非常高。家长核对表的得分与词汇任务的得分呈中度相关。在图片命名和图片识别任务中,我们比较了家长标记的单词总数和儿童正确识别的项目数。在图片命名中,我们发现儿童的得分与家长选择的单词数量之间没有差异。然而,在图片识别任务中,家长选择的单词数量明显少于儿童正确识别的单词数量。在分析单个项目的数据时(即父母选择的项目是否与儿童正确回答的项目完全相同),我们发现两者的一致程度很低。一致程度与儿童的词汇量呈负相关;也就是说,儿童认识的单词越多,直接测量与家长核对表之间的一致程度就越低:对于 3 至 6 岁的儿童,应谨慎使用家长核对表,尤其是在被评估儿童词汇量较大且计划进行项目分析的情况下。对于年龄较小或词汇量有限的儿童,这种核对表可能更有用:关于该主题的已知信息 家长核对表通常用于评估 4 岁以下儿童的词汇量。以往的研究表明,家长核对表在内部一致性方面是可靠的,在预测性和收敛性方面是有效的。本文对现有知识的补充 本研究介绍了一种家长核对表,旨在评估 3-6 岁波兰语单语儿童的词汇量。统计分析表明,虽然家长核对表显示出很高的可靠性,而且核对表上的分数与词汇量的直接测量结果相关,但家长报告与词汇量直接测量结果之间的一致性(即有效性)明显较低,尤其是在研究单个测试项目时。这项工作的临床意义是什么?这些发现强调了在对 3-6 岁儿童使用家长词汇核对表时谨慎行事的重要性。只有在需要一般/总分时,这些核对表才能替代直接词汇测试。然而,当具体词汇成为关注的主题时,家长的报告可能就不是有效的衡量标准了。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Parental report of vocabulary in 3- to 6-year-old Polish children: Reliable but not valid

Parental report of vocabulary in 3- to 6-year-old Polish children: Reliable but not valid

Background

For over 30 years, parental reports have been used to study the vocabulary of children under 4 years of age. Research exploring parental checklists as a measure of vocabulary in older children is very limited. Typically, authors of parental checklists report the reliability of the developed tools but do not explore validity in terms of the agreement between parental assessments and the children's actual word knowledge.

Aims

We aimed to explore the reliability and validity of a parental checklist for assessing vocabulary in children aged between 3 and 6 years. Furthermore, we aimed to evaluate the agreement between indirect (parental checklist) and direct (picture naming and picture recognition tasks) assessments of children's vocabulary.

Methods and Procedures

A group of 94 typically developing monolingual Polish-speaking children aged between 3 and 6 years were first directly tested onsite with picture naming and picture recognition tasks (Cross-Linguistic Lexical Tasks). Subsequently, the participants’ parents completed an online checklist containing the same set of 128 items and marked all the words that they had ever heard in their child's spontaneous speech.

Outcomes and Results

The parental checklist demonstrated very high internal consistency. The scores of the parental checklist and vocabulary tasks were moderately correlated. We compared the total number of words marked by parents and the number of items correctly identified by children in the picture naming and picture recognition tasks. In picture naming, we found no difference between the children's scores and the number of words selected by parents. However, parents selected significantly fewer words than children correctly recognised in the picture recognition task. When data were analysed at the level of individual items (i.e., whether parents selected exactly the same items that children answered correctly), we found that the level of agreement was low. The level of agreement correlated negatively with the children's vocabulary; that is, the more words a child knew, the lower the agreement between the direct measure and the parental checklist.

Conclusions and Implications

Parental checklists should be used with caution in children aged between 3 and 6 years, especially if the assessed children have a large vocabulary and if item analysis is planned. Such checklists may be of more use in younger children or in children with limited vocabulary.

WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS

What is already known on the subject

  • Parental checklists are commonly used to assess the vocabulary of children younger than 4 years of age. Previous research has indicated that parental checklists are reliable in terms of internal consistency and valid in terms of predictive and convergent validity.

What this paper adds to the existing knowledge

  • This study introduces a parental checklist designed for assessing the vocabulary of monolingual Polish-speaking children aged between 3 and 6 years. Statistical analyses reveal that while the parental checklist exhibits high reliability, and the scores on the checklist correlate with direct measures of vocabulary, the agreement between parental reports and direct vocabulary measures (i.e., validity) is notably low, particularly when examining individual test items.

What are the clinical implications of this work?

  • These findings underscore the importance of exercising caution when using parental vocabulary checklists with children aged between 3 and 6 years. These checklists can serve as a replacement for direct vocabulary tests only when the general/overall score is needed. However, when specific words are the subject of interest, parental reports may not be a valid measure.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders
International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders AUDIOLOGY & SPEECH-LANGUAGE PATHOLOGY-REHABILITATION
CiteScore
3.30
自引率
12.50%
发文量
116
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: The International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders (IJLCD) is the official journal of the Royal College of Speech & Language Therapists. The Journal welcomes submissions on all aspects of speech, language, communication disorders and speech and language therapy. It provides a forum for the exchange of information and discussion of issues of clinical or theoretical relevance in the above areas.
×
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:481959085
Book学术官方微信