Hostname: page-component-7c8c6479df-nwzlb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-03-28T16:48:25.665Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The validity of a parent report instrument of child language at twenty months*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 February 2009

Philip S. Dale*
Affiliation:
University of Washington
Elizabeth Bates
Affiliation:
University of California, San Diego
J. Steven Reznick
Affiliation:
Yale University
Colleen Morisset
Affiliation:
University of Washington
*
Department of Psychology, University of WashingtonNI-25, Seattle, WA 98195, USA

Abstract

When carefully assessed and analysed, parent report can provide a valuable overall evaluation of children's language at 20 months. Norming information and validity coefficients are presented here for a vocabulary checklist assessment included in the Early Language Inventory. Normative data are provided for fullterm, preterm, and precocious samples, including selected vocabulatory subsets that are indicative of early language learning style. The vocabulary checklist has substantial validity as indexed by correlations with the Bayley Scales of Infant Development and particularly with a language subscale derived from that test.

Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1989

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.)

Footnotes

*

The data forming the basis of the analyses of this paper were collected in projects supported by grants from the New England and Seattle Nodes of the John B. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Network on the Transition from Infancy to Childhood, and from the National Institute of Mental Health. We are grateful to Kathryn Barnard, Principal Investigator of NIMH grant MH 36894, ‘Clinical Nursing Model for Infants and Their Families’, for making the Early Language Inventory data for the Seattle Preterm, Fullterm, and Social Risk samples available for this project; and to Donna Thal for her helpful comments on the paper.

References

REFERENCES

Bar-Aden, A. & Leopold, W. F. (1971). Child language: a book of readings. Englewood Cliffs NJ: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
Bates, E., Bretherton, I. & Snyder, L. (1988). From first words to grammar: individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. New York: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Bayley, N. (1969). Bayley scales of infant development. New York: The Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Bowerman, M. (1985). Beyond communicative adequacy: from piecemeal knowledge to an integrated system in the child's acquisition of language. In Nelson, K. (ed.), Children's language. Vol. 5. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
Bretherton, I., McNew, S., Snyder, L. & Bates, E. (1983). Individual differences at twenty months: analytic and holistic strategies in language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 10. 293320.Google Scholar
Gopnik, A. & Meltzoff, A. N. (1986). Relations between semantic and cognitive development in the one-word stage: the specificity hypothesis. Child Development 57. 1040–53.Google Scholar
Hollingshead, A. B. (1975). Four factor index of social status. Unpublished manuscript. Yale University: Department of Sociology.Google Scholar
Nelson, K. (1973). Structure and strategy in learning to talk. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 38. No. 143.Google Scholar
Reznick, J. S. & Goldsmith, L. (1989). A multiple form word production checklist to assess early language. Journal of Child Language 15. 91100.Google Scholar
Snyder, L., Bates, E. & Bretherton, I. (1981). Content and context in early lexical development. Journal of Child Language 8. 565–82.Google Scholar