ArticleCoDAS2021
Content and construct validation of language acquisition enunciative signs in the second year of life.
Article in CoDAS, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Article
- Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeTo analyze the content and construct validity of enunciative signs of language acquisition for children aged 13 to 24 months.
methodsThe signs created were subjected to an assessment of clarity and relevance by six expert judges in language acquisition from an enunciative perspective. Based on their judgment, an experimental version was produced that was applied to the analysis of videos of mother-baby / examiner interactions, lasting 15 minutes, of 77 mother-baby dyads aged 13 to 18 months and 89 dyads in the age range aged between 19 and 24 months. The validity of reliability and internal consistency was performed by analyzing 10% of the sample by two speech therapists. The construct validation was carried out by the factorial analysis carried out on the total sample. The data were analyzed in Statistica 9.1 and PASW 17.0.
resultsAll signs were considered clear and relevant by the expert judges. The reliability analysis showed an almost perfect agreement (0.8 ≤ Kappa ≥ 1.0) for most signs. The internal consistency for Phase 3 showed alpha = 0.771 considered high and Phase 4 presented alpha = 0.917 bordering on very high. The factor analysis of phase 3 revealed 2 factors, explaining 59.1% of the total variance and phase 4 revealed 1 factor, explaining 75.7%.
conclusionContent and construct validity were observed for five of the twelve signs in Phase 3 and for all signs in Phase 4.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.