Development and norming of the Hungarian CDI‐III: A screening tool for language delay

Abstract

Background: Difficulties in language development are related to social and emotional problems, lower academic outcomes, and lower quality of life from childhood to adolescence. These grave consequences might be significantly reduced by timely identification and professional support. The introduction of systematic screening for language delay (LD) in 3-year-old children in Hungary was based on the recent adaptation of the MacArthur-Bates CDI-III (HCDI-III). Aims: To explore the relevant psychometric properties of the HCDI-III; to identify factors characteristic of the families and children influencing language development at the age group under investigation; and to evaluate the adequacy of the tool for the purpose of screening LD in kindergarten at the age of 3 years. Methods & Procedures:The norming study of the HCDI-III was conducted in a collaborative research project with the Metropolitan Pedagogical Services in Budapest. HCDI-III parent report forms along with a demographic survey form were distributed to parents of all Hungarian-speaking children between the ages of 2;0 and 4;2 without special education needs. The normative sample comprised data from 1424 children aged 2;0-4;2 with 51.1% boys and 48.9% girls. The data set contained information including language skills, basic demographics, birth conditions, health issues and socio-economic status (SES).Outcomes & Results: In the HCDI-III form, six outcome variables were created to cover the domains of expressive vocabulary, morphosyntax and language use. Statistical analyses revealed appropriate psychometric properties of five outcome variables that showed a normal distribution and were strongly correlated to age. Outcomes of girls were slightly (but significantly) higher on scales corresponding to vocabulary, syntax, language use and productivity. Most variables were highly correlated with one another even with age partialled out. Multiple regression analyses revealed significant effect of age, gender and parental education on all main outcome variables. Neither one of the other eight predictors, including familial and birth-related factors, affected linguistic outcomes in our sample.

Internal consistency and concurrent validity of the parental report instrument on language in pre-school-aged children – The Finnish Communicative Development Inventory III

“…Age accounted significantly for the variation in children’s language when measured using the FinCDI III. This result is in line with previous findings (Eriksson, 2017; compare Feldman et al, 2003 and Kas et al, 2022 as well). As language skills develop actively during the third and fourth years of life, it is important that the assessment method is sensitive to general variation based on age.…”

The MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories: updates from the CDI Advisory Board

“…We also look forward to efforts that stretch the limits of the parent report methodology to more effectively accommodate respondents with low-literacy or limited experience with electronic devices (e.g., Alcock et al, 2015 ). We also commend ongoing efforts to apply the parent report methodology to older children, as well as beyond the home context (e.g., Morford and Carlson, 2011 ; Eriksson, 2017 ; Bleses et al, 2018 ; Tulviste and Schults, 2020 ; Kas et al, 2022 ). The MacArthur-Bates CDI Advisory Board is committed to continuing to strengthen our knowledge and efficacy in these and other domains and welcomes the efforts of scholars around the world in further expanding the availability of CDIs worldwide.…”

Child health care nurses' experience of language screening for 2.5‐year‐old children: A qualitative study

“…Additionally, language screening tests have been reported to not function as well in routine clinical work as in validation studies (Voigt & Accardo, 2015). Although some studies have shown promising results in support of universal screening (Holzinger et al, 2022; Kas et al, 2022), the use of universal language screening has not been recommended in primary care in many countries due to insufficient support of effectiveness (Jullien, 2021; Wallace et al, 2015).…”