ArticleJournal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR2026
DELV-ing Into the Psychometrics of Dialect: An Item-Level Analysis With School-Aged African American Children.
Article in Journal of speech, language, and hearing research : JSLHR, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
purposeMeasuring language proficiency in the presence of nonmainstream dialect variation is a crucial task for clinicians and language researchers. Evaluations of the Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation-Screening Test (DELV-ST) have suggested that its items do not conform to the recommended scoring rules. The current article evaluates the items from both parts of the DELV-ST.
methodParticipants included 853 African American students in Grades 1-5. We used a priori confirmatory factor models to evaluate the published structure versus linguistically based blocks of items for the two parts of the DELV-ST: Language Variation (15 items) and Diagnostic Risk (17 items). We also evaluated models of full multinomial scoring of all item choices.
resultsMost of the items had reasonable sensitivity (factor loadings), although some were weak. The alternate scorings suggest there is substantial information in the variant responses. The multiple factors had only moderate correlations with each other (
conclusionsThe items of the DELV-ST did not function well as unidimensional measures of their intended parts in the current sample. Some items and many responses did not function adequately, suggesting that for a better understanding of dialect, a wider variety of linguistic tasks with diagnostically informative responses may be needed. Relations between the DELV-ST and language or reading are therefore questionable. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.33245943.
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.