IntroductionCerebral Visual Impairment (CVI) is the most common cause of visual impairment in children in the developed world and appears to be more prevalent in children with additional support needs (ASN). There is an urgent need for routine screening for CVI, particularly in children with ASN, however, current screening questionnaires for CVI have limited validation. The aim of this study was to evaluate two screening tools: the Five Questions and the CVI Questionnaire. Additionally, the distribution of CVI across neurodevelopmental disorders is unknown. This too was investigated.MethodsAn online survey was completed by 535 parents. The survey was advertised via social media, CVI websites and parent email systems of four schools. The survey comprised of the Five Questions, the CVI Questionnaire and additional questions regarding the child’s diagnoses. Whether or not a child had a diagnosis of CVI and/or additional neurodevelopmental disorders was based on parental report.ResultsBased on parent reports, both the screening tools accurately screened for CVI diagnoses in children. The Five Questions and the CVI Questionnaire have construct validity (as determined through factor analysis), high internal consistency (as determined by Cronbach’s alpha) and convergent validity (as determined by correlation analysis of the raw scores of each questionnaire). This study also highlights that among children with neurodevelopmental disorders, a large proportion have parent-reported CVI (23%-39%) and potential CVI (6.59–22.53%; as identified by the questionnaires).ConclusionThe current study demonstrates that the Five Questions and CVI Questionnaire have good convergent validity, internal consistency and a reliable factor structure and may therefore be suitable as screening tools. The study also highlights that reported or potential CVI is evident in a large proportion of children with neurodevelopmental disorders.

Language processing in adults is facilitated by an expert ability to generate detailed predictions about upcoming words. This may seem like an acquired skill, but some models of language acquisition assume that the ability to predict is a prerequisite for learning. This raises a question: Do children learn to predict, or do they predict to learn? We tested whether children, like adults, can generate expectations about not just the meanings of upcoming words but also their sounds, which would be critical for using prediction to learn about language. In two looking-while-listening experiments, we show that 2-year-olds can generate expectations about meaning based on a determiner (Can you see one…ball/two…ice creams?) but that even children as old as 5 years do not show an adult-like ability to predict the phonology of upcoming words based on a determiner (Can you see a…ball/an…ice cream?). Our results, therefore, suggest that the ability to generate detailed predictions is a late-acquired skill. We argue that prediction might not be the key mechanism driving children's learning, but that the ability to generate accurate semantic predictions may nevertheless have facilitative effects on language development.

Language processing in adults is facilitated by an expert ability to generate detailed predictions about upcoming words. This may seem like an acquired skill, but some models of language acquisition assume that the ability to predict is a pre-requisite for learning. This raises a question: Do children learn to predict, or do they predict to learn? We tested whether children, like adults, can generate expectations about not just the meanings of upcoming words but, also, their sounds, which would be critical for using prediction to learn about language. In two looking-while-listening experiments, we show that two-year-olds can generate expectations about meaning based on a determiner (Can you see one…ball/two…ice-creams?), but that even children as old as five do not show an adult-like ability to predict the phonology of upcoming words based on a determiner (Can you see a…ball/an…ice-cream?). Our results therefore suggest that the ability to generate detailed predictions is a late-acquired skill. We argue that prediction may not be the key mechanism driving children’s learning, but that the ability to generate accurate semantic predictions may nevertheless have facilitative effects of language development.