Discriminant accuracy of a semantics measure with Latino English-speaking, Spanish-speaking, and English–Spanish bilingual children

Peña, Elizabeth D.; Bedore, Lisa M.; Kester, Ellen S.

doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2014.11.001

Cited by 45 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 84 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In the current study we follow‐up on our finding in Peña et al . () that classification accuracy for balanced bilingual children was slightly lower than for monolinguals. Specifically, we explore whether combining performance in two languages, using a total score and a two‐dimensional bilingual coordinate score improves classification accuracy using the 2008 experimental version of the semantics subtest from the BESA (Peña et al .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Assessment of language impairment in bilingual children using semantic tasks: two languages classify better than one

Peña¹,

Bedore

Kester³

2015

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Significant progress has been made in the identification of language impairment in children are bilingual. Bilingual children’s vocabulary knowledge may be distributed across languages. Thus, when testing bilingual children it is difficult to know how to weigh each language for diagnostic purposes. Even when conceptual scoring is used in vocabulary testing, bilingual children may score below that of their typical monolingual peers. Aims The primary aim was to evaluate the classification accuracy of two approaches (total semantics score and two-dimensional bilingual coordinate score) that combined lexical–semantic knowledge across two languages. We investigated the classification accuracy of the English and Spanish semantics subtest using the experimental version of the Bilingual English Spanish Assessment (BESA) with bilingual children with and without language impairment. Methods A total of 78 bilinguals with balanced exposure to English and Spanish (15 with language impairment, 63 with typical development) participated. Children were between 4;0 and 6;11 years old. Discriminant function analysis explored the extent to which these children were accurately classified when combining Spanish and English subtests. Outcomes & Results Discriminant analysis yielded above 85% correct classification for balanced bilingual children for both approaches. Conclusions & Implications For the most accurate assessment and diagnostic decision-making for bilinguals, approaches that consider both languages together are recommended.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 86%

“…In a recent study, Peña et al . () found that bilingual and functional monolingual (those with less than 20% daily exposure to another) children with and without LI scored significantly different on the experimental version of the BESA (Peña et al . ) semantics subtest.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Assessment of language impairment in bilingual children using semantic tasks: two languages classify better than one

Peña¹,

Bedore

Kester³

2015

Intl J Lang & Comm Disor

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The manner in which vocabulary words are elicited may affect children's performance. Conceptual scoring, where responses are accepted in either language and credited on a single-word test, has been demonstrated to mitigate some of the documented differences in vocabulary scores between monolingual and bilingual children (Bedore, Peña, Garcia, & Cortez, 2005;Pearson, Fernandez, & Oller, 1993;Peña, Bedore, & Kester, 2015). The numerous studies that demonstrate the utility of conceptual vocabulary scoring for capturing vocabulary knowledge may lead clinicians to think that such an approach is sufficient for informing diagnostic decision making.…”

Section: Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The children in the present study are over the age of 3;0. Therefore, total vocabulary scores were not considered.Conceptual scoring, which considers the number of concepts for which a child has a word in any language, has been demonstrated to reduce some of the documented differences between monolingual and bilingual children (Bedore et al, 2005;Core et al, 2013;Pearson et al, 1993;Peña et al, 2015). To achieve their communication goals and to convey concepts, bilinguals will make use of their vocabulary resources in both languages by sometimes switching between their two languages at the single-word level (i.e., code-mix) or at the conversational or narrative level (i.e., code-switch; Greene, .…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conceptual Scoring and Classification Accuracy of Vocabulary Testing in Bilingual Children

Anaya

Peña

Bedore

2018

LSHSS

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Downloaded From: http://lshss.pubs.asha.org/ by a ReadCube User on 01/10/2018 Terms of Use: http://pubs.asha.org/ss/rights_and_permissions.aspx specificity, however, we have no reason to expect high classification accuracy, even if conceptual scoring is used. Thus, we explore the diagnostic accuracy of conceptual vocabulary scoring to determine if using conceptual scoring with single-word vocabulary tests increased their sensitivity so they might contribute to the identification of SLI in bilingual children. Vocabulary Difficulties in Children With SLILexical acquisition deficits are a commonly noted characteristic of SLI in research and clinical practice (Gray, 2004(Gray, , 2005(Gray, , 2006Horohov & Oetting, 2004;Kiernan & Gray, 1998;Nash & Donaldson, 2005;Rice, Oetting, Marquis, Bode, & Pae, 1994;Weismer & Hesketh, 1998). Compared with peers with typically developing (TD) language skills, children with SLI exhibit slower vocabulary growth (Rescorla, Roberts, & Dahlsgaard, 1997), difficulty learning new words (Alt, Plante, & Creusere, 2004;Alt & Suddarth, 2012), and limited expressive vocabulary (Gray & Brinkley, 2011). Experimental studies comparing children with SLI and TD language skills document significant difficulties in word learning. For example, Weismer and Hesketh (1998) found that children with SLI require more exposures to a word to comprehend or produce it than their TD peers. In both fast mapping and quick incidental learning tasks, children with SLI learn fewer novel words (Alt, 2011;Alt et al., 2004;Gray, 2004Gray, , 2006Oetting, Rice, & Swank, 1995;Rice, Cleave, & Oetting, 2000;Rice et al., 1994). They also demonstrate weaknesses in word retrieval (Gray, 2004;Gray & Brinkley, 2011;Kambanaros et al., 2015;McGregor, Newman, Reilly, & Capone, 2002), naming errors, and word approximation difficulties (Dollaghan, 1998;Sheng & McGregor, 2010;Spaulding, 2010).Due to these documented deficits in word learning and perhaps to their ease of administration and scoring, vocabulary tests are widely used by clinicians to determine whether a child's language skills require further evaluation (Campbell, Bell, & Keith, 2001), as a method of identifying SLI in children for research studies (Rice et al., 1990;Rice, Buhr, & Oetting, 1992;Rice et al., 1994), or to document vocabulary growth (Rowe, Raudenbush, & Goldin-Meadow, 2012). While numerous comprehensive language batteries are commercially available to clinicians, vocabulary tests are frequently used as a component of diagnostic evaluations of children to determine if a child meets the criteria for SLI (Betz et al., 2013), even though test manuals may not recommend them for this purpose (Brownell, 2000a). Vocabulary Tests as Indicators of SLITo use vocabulary test scores for screening or identification purposes, clinicians must first be confident that the assessment has evidence of validity and reliability (McCauley & Swisher, 1984). Plante and Vance (1994) suggested that language tests that discriminate between children with and without SLI with an accuracy...

show abstract

“…The issue of whether the structural characteristics of particular language pairs contribute to the individual variability in vocabulary size noted across bilingual groups would be worth pursuing in the future. Another possibility is that the differences in word frequencies in particular languages and cultures led to these differences, as this has been found to occur even when conceptual scoring was used (Peña, Bedore, and Kester 2015). All of these factors influence our understanding of what to expect from the typically developing bilingual child.…”

Section: Limitations Of Cdi-based Bilingual Cross-linguistic Comparisonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Parent report of early lexical production in bilingual children: a cross-linguistic CDI comparison

O’Toole

Gatt

Hickey

et al. 2016

International Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper compared the vocabulary size of a group of 250 bilinguals aged 24-36 months acquiring six different language pairs using an analogous tool, and attempted to identify factors that influence vocabulary sizes and ultimately place children at risk for language delay. Each research group used adaptations of the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories: Words and Sentences and a specially designed developmental and language background questionnaire to gather information on risk factors for language impairment, demographic and language exposure variables. The results showed a wide range in vocabulary development which could be somewhat attributed to mothers' education status, parental concerns about language development and amount of exposure to the second language. We looked at those children performing below the 10th and above the 90th percentile to determine what factors were related to their vocabulary size. Features of the entire group of lower performing children were fewer than 50 words and the absence of two-word combinations by 24 months, lower levels of parental education and parental concerns about language development. The implications for identifying bilingual children at risk for language impairment as well as the language enrichment that might be needed for young bilinguals are outlined. ARTICLE HISTORY

show abstract

Discriminant accuracy of a semantics measure with Latino English-speaking, Spanish-speaking, and English–Spanish bilingual children

Cited by 45 publications

References 84 publications

Assessment of language impairment in bilingual children using semantic tasks: two languages classify better than one

Assessment of language impairment in bilingual children using semantic tasks: two languages classify better than one

Conceptual Scoring and Classification Accuracy of Vocabulary Testing in Bilingual Children

Parent report of early lexical production in bilingual children: a cross-linguistic CDI comparison

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About