2022
DOI: 10.1080/17549507.2022.2045357
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Suitability of vocabulary assessments: Comparing child scores and parent perspectives on communicative inventories for Aboriginal families in Western Sydney

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2022
2022
2023
2023

Publication Types

Select...
2

Relationship

0
2

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 2 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 33 publications
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Anecdotal reports suggest that some organisations have at times used word lists created for other populations, reportedly with a sense of frustration. There is therefore an urgent need for a locallyverified language assessment tool that fairly reflects the physical, language and sociocognitive environments of the children (Angelo, 2013;Cole & Zieky, 2001, p. 40;Khamchuang et al, 2022). This paper reports on the development of a local, empirically-based early childhood vocabulary evaluation tool, a multilingual MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI) (Fenson et al, 2007;Fenson et al, 2000)…”
Section: Why Assess Vocabulary?mentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Anecdotal reports suggest that some organisations have at times used word lists created for other populations, reportedly with a sense of frustration. There is therefore an urgent need for a locallyverified language assessment tool that fairly reflects the physical, language and sociocognitive environments of the children (Angelo, 2013;Cole & Zieky, 2001, p. 40;Khamchuang et al, 2022). This paper reports on the development of a local, empirically-based early childhood vocabulary evaluation tool, a multilingual MacArthur Bates Communicative Development Inventory (CDI) (Fenson et al, 2007;Fenson et al, 2000)…”
Section: Why Assess Vocabulary?mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Even though varieties of English are spoken by children that two of the CDIs aim to accommodate, the concepts expressed in the two varieties show some differences. Similarly,Khamchuang et al (2022) found that Aboriginal speakers of English living in Sydney had higher scores based on ERLI than on OZI-SF, for reasons connected to culture and language -caregivers and children use Aboriginal ways of speaking English with some features that differ from General Australian English. The third notable point is that the Little Kids' Word List and ERLI both accommodate multilingualism, unlike OZI-SF.…”
mentioning
confidence: 93%