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] must: • 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. REFERENCES 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- 366. 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), 337-348. 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.
Pages to are hidden for
"The Classification Accuracy of the MacArthur Communicative Development"Please download to view full document