Premium
Investigation of the language tasks to include in a short‐language measure for children in the early school years
Author(s) -
Matov Jessica,
Mensah Fiona,
Cook Fallon,
Reilly Sheena
Publication year - 2018
Publication title -
international journal of language and communication disorders
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.101
H-Index - 67
eISSN - 1460-6984
pISSN - 1368-2822
DOI - 10.1111/1460-6984.12378
Subject(s) - psychology , measure (data warehouse) , developmental psychology , language development , linguistics , philosophy , database , computer science
Background The inaccurate estimation of language difficulties by teachers suggests the benefit of a short‐language measure that could be used to support their decisions about who requires referral to a speech–language therapist. While the literature indicates the potential for the development of a short‐language measure, evidence is lacking about which combination of language tasks it should include. Aims To understand the number and nature of components/language tasks that should be included in a short‐language measure for children in the early school years. Methods & Procedures Eight language tasks were administered to participants of the Early Language in Victoria Study (ELVS) at ages 5 ( n = 995) and 7 ( n = 1217). These included six language tasks measured by an omnibus language measure (which comprised a direction‐following, morphological‐completion, sentence‐recall, sentence‐formation, syntactic‐understanding and word‐association task) and a non‐word repetition and a receptive vocabulary task, measured by two task‐specific language measures. Scores were analyzed using principal component analysis (PCA), the Bland and Altman method, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. Outcomes & Results PCA revealed one main component of language that was assessed by all language tasks. The most effective combination of two tasks that measured this component was a direction‐following and a sentence‐recall task. It showed the greatest agreement with an omnibus language measure and exceeded the criterion for good discriminant accuracy (sensitivity = 94%, specificity = 91%, accuracy = 91%, at 1 SD (standard deviation) below the mean). Conclusions & Implications Findings support the combination of a direction‐following and a sentence‐recall task to assess language ability effectively in the early school years. The results could justify the future production of a novel short‐language measure comprising a direction‐following and a sentence‐recall task to use as a screening tool in schools and to assess language ability in research participants.