Evidence map›Paper›PMID 36105373›Full record

ArticlePerspectives of the ASHA special interest groups2022

Interpretation and Use of Standardized Language Assessments for Diverse School-Age Individuals.

Teresa Girolamo, Samantha Ghali, Ivan Campos, Andrea Ford

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Perspectives of the ASHA special interest groups, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
5.4field-weighted citation impact, top 5% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 10 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Teresa GirolamoUniversity of Connecticut, University of Kansas, CAHELP, University of Minnesota.
Samantha GhaliUniversity of Connecticut, University of Kansas, CAHELP, University of Minnesota.
Ivan CamposUniversity of Connecticut, University of Kansas, CAHELP, University of Minnesota.
Andrea FordUniversity of Connecticut, University of Kansas, CAHELP, University of Minnesota.
Google (United States) · US

Funding

TRAINING RESEARCHERS IN LANGUAGE IMPAIRMENTST32DC000052 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF KANSAS LAWRENCE · PI RICE, MABEL L · 1995 to 2022
$2.7M
Training in the Cognitive Neuroscience of CommunicationT32DC017703 · NIDCD · UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT STORRS · PI Inge-Marie Eigsti, Emily B Myers · 2019 to 2026
$2.3M
NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC000052NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC017703
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Purpose: The ultimate aim of an assessment is to help examiners make valid conclusions about an individual's skill given their performance on a particular measure. Yet, assessing the language abilities of culturally and linguistically diverse individuals requires researchers and practitioners to carefully consider the appropriateness of traditional parameters of test psychometrics (e.g., reliability, or consistency of assessments as measurement) Conclusions: Implementing intersectional approaches in working with diverse children and using assessment scores as just one piece of evidence amid a broader evidence base will contribute to a more accurate evaluation of culturally and linguistically diverse children's language abilities. A comprehensive approach involving multiple stakeholders across the field of communication sciences and disorders may support achieving such implementation.

Indexed as

assessmentcultural and linguistic diversityinterpretation and use

Identifiers

PMID36105373
PMCPMC9467289
OpenAlexW4289793972

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.