Advertisement

A short version of the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventories with high validity

  • Julien Mayor
  • Nivedita Mani
Article

Abstract

The MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventories (CDIs) are among the most widely used evaluation tools for early language development. CDIs are filled in by the parents or caregivers of young children by indicating which of a prespecified list of words and/or sentences their child understands and/or produces. Despite the success of these instruments, their administration is time-consuming and can be of limited use in clinical settings, multilingual environments, or when parents possess low literacy skills. We present a new method through which an estimation of the full-CDI score can be obtained, by combining parental responses on a limited set of words sampled randomly from the full CDI with vocabulary information extracted from the WordBank database, sampled from age-, gender-, and language-matched participants. Real-data simulations using versions of the CDI-WS for American English, German, and Norwegian as examples revealed the high validity and reliability of the instrument, even for tests having just 25 words, effectively cutting administration time to a couple of minutes. Empirical validations with new German-speaking participants confirmed the robustness of the test.

Keywords

Language assessment Word learning Psychometric testing 

References

  1. Amatuni, & Bergelson (2017). Semantic networks generated from early linguistic input. bioRxiv preprint. bioRxiv:157701; 10.1101/157701Google Scholar
  2. Anderson, D., & Reilly, J. (2002). The MacArthur communicative development inventory: Normative data for American Sign Language. Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 7, 83–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Braginsky, M., Yurovsky, D., Marchman, V. A., & Frank, M. C. (2015). Developmental changes in the relationship between grammar and the lexicon. In D. C. Noelle, R. Dale, A. S. Warlaumont, J. Yoshimi, T. Matlock, C. D. Jennings, & P. P. Maglio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 256–261). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  4. Braginsky, M., Yurovsky, D., Marchman, V. A., & Frank, M. C. (2016). From uh-oh to tomorrow: Predicting age of acquisition for early words across languages. In A. Papafragou, D. Grodner, D. Mirman, & J. C. Trueswell (Eds.), Proceedings of the 38th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 1691–1696). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  5. Fenson, L., Bates, E., Dale, P. S., Marchman, V. A., Reznick, J. S., & Thal, D. J. (2007). MacArthur–Bates communicative development inventories. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.Google Scholar
  6. Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J. P., ... Reilly, J. S. (1993). The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories: User’s guide and technical manual. San Diego, CA: Singular.Google Scholar
  7. Fenson, L., Pethick, S., Renda, C., Cox, J. L., Dale, P. S., & Reznick, J. S. (2000). Short-form versions of the MacArthur communicative development inventories. Applied PsychoLinguistics, 21, 95–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Frank, M. C., Braginsky, M., Yurovsky, D., & Marchman, V. A. (2017). Wordbank: An open repository for developmental vocabulary data. Journal of Child Language, 44, 677–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Galeote, M., Checa, E., Sánchez-Palacios, C., Sebastián, E., & Soto, P. (2016). Adaptation of the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventories for Spanish children with Down Syndrome: Validity and reliability data for vocabulary. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 25, 371–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Herman, R., Woolfe, T., Roy, P., & Woll, B. (2010). Early vocabulary development in deaf native signers: A British Sign Language adaptation of the communicative development inventories. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, and Allied Disciplines, 51, 322–331.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2009.02151.x CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Jørgensen, R. N., Dale, P. S., Bleses, D., & Fenson, L. (2010). CLEX: A cross-linguistic lexical norms database. Journal of Child Language, 37, 419–428CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Luyster, R., Lopez, K., & Lord, C. (2007). Characterizing communicative development in children referred for autism spectrum disorders using the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI). Journal of Child Language, 34, 623–654.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Makransky, G., Dale, P. S., Havmose, P., & Bleses, D. (2016). An item response theory-based, computerized adaptive testing version of the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventory: Words & Sentences (CDI: WS). Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 59, 281–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Mayne, A. M., Yoshinaga-Itano, C., Sedey, A. L., & Carey, A. (1998). Expressive vocabulary development of infants and toddlers who are deaf or hard of hearing. The Volta Review, 100(5), 1–28Google Scholar
  15. Mayor, J., & Plunkett, K. (2011). A statistical estimate of infant and toddler vocabulary size from CDI analysis. Developmental Science, 14, 769–785.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mayor, J., & Plunkett, K. (2014). Shared understanding and idiosyncratic expression in early vocabularies. Developmental Science, 17, 412–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mollica, F., & Piantadosi, S. T. (2017). How data drive early word learning: A cross-linguistic waiting time analysis. Open Mind: Discoveries in Cognitive Science, 1, 67–77.  https://doi.org/10.1162/OPMI_a_00006 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Pérez-Pereira, M., & Resches, M. (2007). Elaboración de las formas breves del Inventario do Desenvolvemento de Habilidades Comunicativas. Datos normativos y propiedades psicométricas. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 30, 565–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Schneider, R., Yurovsky, D., & Frank, M. (2015). Large-scale investigations of variability in children’s first words. In D. C. Noelle, R. Dale, A. S. Warlaumont, J. Yoshimi, T. Matlock, C. D. Jennings, & P. P. Maglio (Eds.), Proceedings of the 37th Annual Meeting of the Cognitive Science Society (pp. 2110–2115). Austin, TX: Cognitive Science Society.Google Scholar
  20. Simonsen, H. G., Kristoffersen, K. E., Bleses, D., Wehberg, S., & Jørgensen, R. N. (2014). The Norwegian Communicative Development Inventories: Reliability, main developmental trends and gender differences. First Language, 34, 3–23.  https://doi.org/10.1177/0142723713510997 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Szagun, G., Stumper, B., & Schramm, A. S. (2009). Fragebogen zur frühkindlichen Sprachentwicklung (FRAKIS) und FRAKIS-K (Kurzform). Frankfurt, Germany: Pearson Assessment.Google Scholar
  22. Thal, D., DesJardin, J. L., & Eisenberg, L. S. (2007). Validity of the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventories for measuring language abilities in children with cochlear implants. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 16, 54–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of OsloOsloNorway
  2. 2.University of GöttingenGöttingenGermany

Personalised recommendations