Evaluating the predictive validity of the Computerized Comprehension Task: Comprehension predicts production.

Abstract

Until recently, the challenges inherent in measuring comprehension have impeded our ability to predict the course of language acquisition. The present research reports on a longitudinal assessment of the convergent and predictive validity of the CDI: Words and Gestures and the Computerized Comprehension Task (CCT). The CDI: WG and the CCT evinced good convergent validity however the CCT better predicted subsequent parent reports of language production. Language sample data in the third year confirm this finding: the CCT accounted for 24% of the variance in unique word use. These studies provide evidence for the utility of a behavior-based approach to predicting the course of language acquisition into production.

Assessing a continuum of lexical–semantic knowledge in the second year of life: A multimodal approach

“…Parents wore blackout glasses and noise-cancelling headphones to mitigate parental influence during the task. The assessment followed the protocol for the Computerized Comprehension Task (CCT; Friend & Keplinger, 2003; Friend, Schmitt, & Simpson, 2012). The CCT is an experimenter-controlled assessment that uses infants’ haptic response to measure early decontextualized word knowledge.…”

“…Pilot data using the automated version showed that children’s interest in the task waned to such an extent that attrition rates approached 85% (attrition rates using the experimenter-controlled CCT are between 5% and 10%; M. Friend, personal communication, June 17, 2014; P. Zesiger, personal communication, May 21, 2014). Therefore, to collect a sufficient amount of data to yield effects, we used the well-documented protocol of the CCT (Friend & Keplinger, 2003; Friend et al, 2012). Previous studies have reported that the CCT has strong internal consistency (Form A: α = .836; Form B: α = .839), converges with parent report (partial r controlling for age = .361, p < .01), and predicts subsequent language production (Friend et al, 2012).…”

“…Therefore, to collect a sufficient amount of data to yield effects, we used the well-documented protocol of the CCT (Friend & Keplinger, 2003; Friend et al, 2012). Previous studies have reported that the CCT has strong internal consistency (Form A: α = .836; Form B: α = .839), converges with parent report (partial r controlling for age = .361, p < .01), and predicts subsequent language production (Friend et al, 2012). In addition, responses on the CCT are nonrandom (Friend & Keplinger, 2008), and this finding replicates across languages (Friend & Zesiger, 2011) and monolinguals and bilinguals (Poulin-Dubois et al, 2013).…”

The Language Exposure Assessment Tool: Quantifying Language Exposure in Infants and Children

“…The CCT also demonstrates convergent validity with MCDI reports of vocabulary comprehension and 4-month test-retest reliability (Friend & Keplinger, 2008;Friend & Zesiger, 2011) and accounts for significant variance in subsequent vocabulary production (Friend et al, 2012).…”

“…The CCT contains 41 pairs of images presented on a touch-sensitive screen, following the method of Friend and colleagues (Friend & Keplinger, 2003;Friend, Schmitt, & Simpson, 2012). Children are prompted to touch the target by an experimenter ("Where is the shoe?…”