Purpose This study reports validity evidence for an English translation of the LittlEARS Early Speech Production Questionnaire (LEESPQ). The LEESPQ was designed to support early spoken language outcome monitoring in young children who are deaf/hard of hearing. Methods Data from 90 children with normal hearing, ages 0–18 months, are reported. Parents completed the LEESPQ in addition to a concurrent measure of spoken language development, the Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language Test–Third Edition. Normal hearing status and development were confirmed. Results Traditional scale analyses, in addition to item parameters, are reported. The LEESPQ was highly correlated with the Receptive-Expressive Emergent Language Test–Third Edition ( r = .92) and age ( r = .90) and had high internal consistency (Ω = 0.92). Common factor analysis revealed 2 underlying factors conceptually mapping onto items measuring vocal and symbolic development. A latent traits model was the best fit to the data, and item difficulty broadly conformed to theoretical expectations. Conclusions The present work demonstrates that the LEESPQ accurately captures early spoken language development in a typically developing group of young children. The LEESPQ holds promise as a clinically feasible, spoken language outcome monitoring tool. Future work to identify differences in performance characteristics between typically developing children and clinical populations is warranted.

No abstract

Background Co-production is an umbrella term used to describe the process of generating knowledge through partnerships between researchers and those who will use or benefit from research. Multiple advantages of research co-production have been hypothesized, and in some cases documented, in both the academic and practice record. However, there are significant gaps in understanding how to evaluate the quality of co-production. This gap in rigorous evaluation undermines the potential of both co-production and co-producers. Methods This research tests the relevance and utility of a novel evaluation framework: Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ + 4 Co-Pro). Following a co-production approach ourselves, our team collaborated to develop study objectives, questions, analysis, and results sharing strategies. We used a dyadic field-test design to execute RQ + 4 Co-Pro evaluations amongst 18 independently recruited subject matter experts. We used standardized reporting templates and qualitative interviews to collect data from field-test participants, and thematic assessment and deliberative dialogue for analysis. Main limitations include that field-test participation included only health research projects and health researchers and this will limit perspective included in the study, and, that our own co-production team does not include all potential perspectives that may add value to this work. Results The field test surfaced strong support for the relevance and utility of RQ + 4 Co-Pro as an evaluation approach and framework. Research participants shared opportunities for fine-tuning language and criteria within the prototype version, but also, for alternative uses and users of RQ + 4 Co-Pro. All research participants suggested RQ + 4 Co-Pro offered an opportunity for improving how co-production is evaluated and advanced. This facilitated our revision and publication herein of a field-tested RQ + 4 Co-Pro Framework and Assessment Instrument. Conclusion Evaluation is necessary for understanding and improving co-production, and, for ensuring co-production delivers on its promise of better health.. RQ + 4 Co-Pro provides a practical evaluation approach and framework that we invite co-producers and stewards of co-production—including the funders, publishers, and universities who increasingly encourage socially relevant research—to study, adapt, and apply.

BackgroundResearch co-production is an umbrella term used to describe research users and researchers working together to generate knowledge. Research co-production is used to create knowledge that is relevant to current challenges and to increase uptake of that knowledge into practice, programs, products, and/or policy. Yet, rigorous theories and methods to assess the quality of co-production are limited. Here we describe a framework for assessing the quality of research co-production – Research Quality Plus for Co-Production (RQ+ 4 Co-Pro) – and outline our field test of this approach.MethodsUsing a co-production approach, we aim to field test the relevance and utility of the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework. To do so we will recruit participants who have led research co-production projects from the international Integrated Knowledge Translation Research Network. We aim to sample 16 to 20 co-production project leads, assign these participants to dyadic groups (8 to 10 dyads), train each participant in the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework using deliberative workshops and oversee a simulation assessment exercise using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro within dyadic groups. To study this experience, we use a qualitative design to collect participant demographic information and project demographic information, and will use in-depth semi-structured interviews to collect data related to the experience each participant has using the RQ+ 4 Co-Pro framework.DiscussionThis study will yield knowledge about a new way to assess research co-production. Specifically, it will address the relevance and utility of using RQ+ 4 Co-Pro, a framework that includes context as an inseparable component of research, identifies dimensions of quality matched to the aims of co-production, and applies a systematic and transferable evaluative method for reaching conclusions. This is a needed area of innovation for research co-production to reach its full potential. The findings may benefit co-producers interested in understanding the quality of their work, but also other stewards of research co-production. Accordingly, we undertake this study as a co-production team representing multiple perspectives from across the research enterprise, such as: funders, journal editors, university administrators, and government and health organization leaders.

https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.5538868.