The Classification Accuracy of the MacArthur Communicative Development by fhy50518


									                           The Classification Accuracy of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory-Level III
                                     Wenonah Campbell and Elizabeth Skarakis-Doyle, Doctoral Program in Rehabilitation Sciences, University of Western Ontario
                                                              Lynn Dempsey, Department of Applied Linguistics, Brock University

                       INTRODUCTION                                                                                                                                                           • CDI-III Total Score significantly predicted
                                                                                                                                • Independent samples t-tests     LI group obtained             language status (Wilks’ lambda = .514, X 2 (1)
                                                                Table 1. Characteristics of Children with                         significantly lower percentage scores on all subtests of
                                                                Language Impairment                                                                                                             = 44.26, p = .000)
• Caregiver involvement in assessment widely                                                                                      CDI-III
  regarded as best practice in early intervention1,2
                                                                                                                                                                                              • Overall classification accuracy excellent at
• Indeed, IDEA takes caregiver involvement as one of                         Variable                   M (SD)                         Vocabulary   →   t (10.59) = 8.01, p < .01, d = 2.88     92.8%
  its central foci3                                                                                                                    Grammar      →   t (11.62) = 5.65, p < .01, d = 1.89
                                                                                                      [min-max]                                                                                     • Comparable to many language tests and
       Thus, considerable interest in developing valid                                                                                 Use          →   t (9.12) = 4.76, p < .01, d = 1.93            based solely on parental report
       and reliable parent-report measures                               PPVT-III SS                  85.78 (8.98)
                                                                      (M = 100; SD = 15)               [72-100]                 • Note large effect sizes for all three comparisons           • Sensitivity              good
• MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development
  Inventories (CDI) are two such tools:                                                                 (n = 9)                                                                                       • BUT…sample approximated prevalence of
                                                                                                                                                                                                        LI in population rather than using equal
     • Words & Gestures (CDI-WG)          8-16 mos                  TACL-3 – Grammatical              9.67 (2.50)                                                                                       size samples15
     • Words & Sentences (CDI-WS)         16-30 mos                Morphemes Subtest SS*                [6-13]
                                                                                                                                                                                              • Specificity              excellent
     • Validated for infants, toddlers, and children with             (M = 10; SD = 2)                  (n = 6)
       developmental disabilities4,5,6                                                                                                                                                                • 2/3 misclassified children with TLD fell
                                                                    MLU (in morphemes)**              2.14 (0.74)                                                                                       between age range for CDI-WS and
     • Appropriate for assessing developing language,                                                                                                                                                   CDI-III
       and with precautions, identifying risk for                                                     [1.04-3.02]
       language impairment (LI)4,7                                                                      (n = 5)                                                                               • Concern: not all children in LI group achieved
                                                                                                                                                                                                performance IQ score within normal limits
• CDI-III   short-form upper extension of CDI-WS                  McCarthy Performance SS              45 (8.35)
  intended for 30-43 month-olds8                                                                                                                                                                      • Conducted DA on children with LI who had
                                                                     (M = 50; SD = 10)                  [36-57]                                                                                         McCarthy Performance SS ≥ 40 (n = 5)
     • Assesses vocabulary, grammatical complexity,                                                     (n = 9)
       and linguistic concepts                                                                                                                                                                        • Selected subset of TLD group (n = 45) to
                                                                                                                                                                                                        maintain proportion of children with LI at ~
     • Norming and validity data are emerging8,9,10                                                                                                                                                     13%
     • Yet validity is an ongoing process       need to                       RESULTS AND DISCUSSION                                                                                                  • Replicated results of original analysis
       show that CDI-III is valid for its intended
       purpose11                                                                                                                                                                                                   Thus , nonverbal IQ cannot account
                                                                                                                                                                                                                   for results of original DA
                                                            •    Initial analysis LI group’s CDI-III scores were compared
                                                                 to those obtained by the TLD group
                  Goal of Present Study                                                                                         • Although average performance of the LI and TLD groups                                CONCLUSIONS
                                                                                                                                  differed significantly, still must determine if CDI-III
     To determine the accuracy with which the                   Table 2. Descriptives for the CDI-III by Group                    correctly identifies particular children known to have LI   • This preliminary study suggests CDI-III may be
    CDI-III can discriminate between children with                                                                                                                                              valid for the purpose of identifying children with
           LI and those developing typically.                                                                                                                                                   LI who are between 30-45 months of age
                                                                                      TLD                  LI               •    Therefore, a Discriminant Analysis was conducted to
                                                                   CDI-III                                                       determine whether the CDI-III Total Score would              • Could be used in conjunction with other
                        METHODS                                    Scores
                                                                                    M (SD)              M (SD)                   accurately discriminate children with LI from those with       measures for a complete assessment of
                                                                                  [min – max]         [min – max]                TLD                                                            language
• 60 children with typical language development (TLD)
     • 30-45 months (M = 37.17, SD = 4.11; 23 males)                                                                            Table 3. Classification Table for the CDI-III                 • Clinical implications      CDI-III could be used as
                                                                 Vocabulary       73.17 (18.74)       19.89 (18.58)                                                                             a first step in identification of LI for SLPs who
                                                                 (max = 100)        [25-100]             [0-56]
• 9 children with LI
                                                                                                                                                           Predicted Language Status                • screen large numbers of children
     • 31-45 months (M = 39.00, SD = 6.14 ; 7 males)
                                                                  Grammar          8.78 (3.87)         2.00 (3.28)                                                                                  • prioritize a waiting list
     • Proportion (13%) = prevalence data for preschool          (max = 12)          [0-12]               [0-8]                   Known Language               TLD                    LI
       population, particularly for local area of London,                                                                                                                                           • provide services to remote areas
       Ontario, Canada12,13                                                                                                           Status

     • Inclusion based upon status in treatment, not
                                                                    Use            9.17 (2.16)         3.89 (3.22)                                                                            • Research implications      CDI-III may be an
                                                                                                                                  TLD                       Specificity          3 (5%)         efficient means of selecting children for more
       upon tests scores of referring clinicians14               (max = 12)          [3-12]               [0-9]
                                                                                                                                                             57 (95%)                           extensive testing in large-scale studies
     • All had expressive and receptive deficits per
       parent report                                             Total Score      91.12 (22.87)       25.78 (24.07)               LI                          2 (22%)         Sensitivity                         ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
                                                                 (max = 124)        [28-124]             [0-70]                                                                7(78%)                      This study was conducted with funding from The University of
• Parents completed CDI-III as part of a larger study on                                                                                                                                         Western Ontario, Toronto Hospital for Sick Kids Foundation, and the Social
  language comprehension                                                                                                                                                                        Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The authors gratefully
                                                                                                                                                                                                acknowledge the participation of the children and their families, as well as the
                                                                                                                                                                                                  assistance of Prof. Chris Lee, Jayna Amting, Melanie Beaudin, Joselynne
                                                                                                                                                                                                                 Jaques, Sarah Pifher, and Brooke Thornton.

1. Crais, E.R. & Calculator, S.N. (1998). Role of caregivers in the assessment process. In A.M. Wetherby, S.F. Warren, & J. Reichle (Eds.), Transitions in prelinguistic communication (pp. 261-284). Baltimore,
   MD: Paul H. Brookes.

2. Law, M., Hanna, S., Hurley, P., King, S., Kertoy, M., & Rosenbaum, P. (2003). Factors affecting family-centred service delivery for children with disabilities. Child: Care, Health and Development, 29(5), 357-

3. Crais, E.R. (2000). Ecologically valid communication assessment of infants and toddlers. In L.R. Watson, E.R. Crais, and T.L. Layton (Eds.), Handbook of early language impairment in children (pp. 1-38).
   Albany, NY: Delmar Thomson Learning.

4. Fenson, L., Bates, E., Dale, P., Goodman, J., Reznick, J.S., & Thal, D. (2000). Measuring variability in early child language: Don't shoot the messenger. Child Development, 71(2), 323-328.

5. Fenson, L.D., Dale, P.S., Reznick, J.S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J.P., Pethick, S., et al. (1991). Technical manual for the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories. San Diego, CA: San Diego
   State University.

6. Miller, J.F., Sedey, A.L., & Miolo, G. (1995). Validity of parent report measures of vocabulary development for children with Down syndrome. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 38(5), 1037-1044.

7. Feldman, H. M., Dollaghan, C. A., Campbell, T. F., Kurs-Lasky, M., Janosky, J. E., & Paradise, J. L. (2000). Measurement properties of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories at ages one
   and two years. Child Development, 71(2), 310-322.

8. Dale, P.S., Reznick, J.S., & Thal, D.J. (1998April 2-5). A parent report measure of language development for three-year-olds. Paper presented at the International Conference for Infant Studies, Atlanta, GA.

9. Feldman, H. M., Dale, P. S., Campbell, T. F., Colborn, D. K., Kurs-Lasky, M., Rockette, H. E., et al. (2005). Concurrent and predictive validity of parent reports of child language at ages 2 and 3 years. Child
   Development, 76(4), 856-868.

10. Oliver, B., Dale, P.S., Saudino, K.J., Petrill, S.A., Pike, A., & Plomin, R. (2002). The validity of a parent-based assessment of cognitive abilities in three-year olds. Early Child Development and Care, 172(4),

11. Messick, S. (1989). Validity. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Educational measurement (3rd ed., pp. 13-103). Washington, DC: American Council on Education.

12. National Institute on Deafness and Other Communicative Disorders. (1995). National strategic research plan for language and language impairments, balance and balance disorders, and voice and voice
    disorders (NIH Publication No. 97-3217). Bethesda, MD: Author.

13. Warr-Leeper, G., Smith, T., & Dunn, C.(2001). Report to the Thames Valley Region Ontario Preschool Speech and Language Initiative (Document No. 196-19-01). London, Ontario, Canada: Thames Valley
    Regional Health District Council.

14. Dollaghan,C., & Campbell, T. (1998). Nonword repetition and child language impairment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 1136-1146.

15. Plante, E., & Vance, R. (1994). Selection of preschool language tests: A data-based approach. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 25, 15-24.

To top