Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40789003›Full record

ArticleInternational journal of language & communication disorders

Convergent Validity of the Cross-Linguistic Lexical Task.

Svetlana Kapalková, Kamila Polišenská, Andrej Mentel, Tereza Horská, Monika Janíková, Martina Zubáková

Abstract readValidation Study
In one paragraph

Article in International journal of language & communication disorders. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

6 authors.

Svetlana KapalkováFaculty of Education, Department of Communication Disorders, Comenius University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0052-6884
Kamila PolišenskáLanguage and Communication Science, City St George's, University of London, London, UK.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7405-6689
Andrej MentelFaculty of Social and Economic Sciences, Institute of Social Anthropology, Comenius University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-8556-7625
Tereza HorskáFaculty of Education, Department of Communication Disorders, Comenius University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia.
Monika JaníkováFaculty of Education, Department of Communication Disorders, Comenius University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia.
Martina ZubákováFaculty of Education, Department of Communication Disorders, Comenius University in Bratislava, Bratislava, Slovakia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

BACKGROUND AND

aimsThe aim of the current study is to assess the validity of the Cross-linguistic lexical task (CLT) against direct and indirect measures of lexical skills across 2-6 years of age, for a crucial period of lexical development. In addition to evaluating relationships between measures at the level of total score, we also explored agreement at an item level between two lexical measures.

methodParticipants were 109 Slovak-speaking 2-6-year-old typically developing children who all completed the Cross-linguistic lexical task (CLT-SK). Three additional measures of lexical skills were obtained: A parental checklist (Slovak adaptation of CDI; n = 30, aged 30-36 months), a narrative task to estimate production of Internal State Terms (n = 79, aged 41-81 months) and a non-word repetition task (n = 105, aged 30-81). The agreement at the item level was determined between items that were included in both the CLT-SK and CDI.

resultsCorrelational analyses showed that the CLT-SK was significantly related to all measures. While relationships at the level of total scores were confirmed, agreement at the level of individual items between parental judgement and the child's performance was poor.

conclusionsThe results support the view that CLT-SK is a valid instrument to assess lexical skills in children aged 2-6 years when total scores are evaluated. However, the agreement at the level of individual items was inadequate, which may have implications for clinical work and/or research based on assumed knowledge of individual items. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject The validity of parental checklists in relation to direct vocabulary assessments is well established, particularly in pre-school-aged children. However, there is limited research exploring the relationship between different direct measures of lexical knowledge. This gap highlights the need for further investigation to understand how various methods complement each other in assessing lexical skills. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This study supports the convergent validity of the CLT-SK. It extends current knowledge by exploring relationships between different types of lexical assessments, within a new language, and provides unique insights into the agreement between individual items when evaluated using different methods. The study found that the overall scores of different lexical measures appear to be related, but the validity at the level of individual test items is low. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The results suggest that lexical assessments are effective for evaluating overall vocabulary knowledge but may not reliably measure specific word knowledge. The study supports the validity of the CLT-SK, highlighting its quick, child-friendly administration, low costs and high accessibility for diverse populations and clinical settings. These features enhance its utility and contribute to the broader applicability of the CLT framework across multiple languages.

Indexed as

Child LanguageLanguage DevelopmentLanguage TestsLinguisticsChildChild, PreschoolFemaleHumansMaleReproducibility of ResultsVocabularyconvergent validitycross‐linguistic lexical tasklexical assessment

Identifiers

PMID40789003
PMCPMC12338969

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.