2016
DOI: 10.1016/j.ridd.2016.05.017
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The concurrent and predictive validity of the Dutch version of the Communicative Development Inventory in children with Down Syndrome for the assessment of expressive vocabulary in verbal and signed modalities

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
8
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(8 citation statements)
references
References 34 publications
0
8
0
Order By: Relevance
“…The MB-CDIs have been extensively used as research tools to describe the language profiles of bilingual children (see O'Toole et al, 2017, for a recent cross-linguistic comparison on bilingual children) and clinical populations, for example children with genetic syndromes, autism spectrum disorders, and cochlear implants, among others (Charman, Drew, Baird, & Baird, 2003;Deckers, Van Zaalen, Mens, Van Balkom, & Verhoeven, 2016;Thal, DesJardin, & Eisenberg, 2007). These studies confirmed the usefulness of the MB-CDIs in describing lexical development trajectories and in highlighting a strong relationship between lexical and grammatical skills, also in bilingual children and in children with atypical development.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The MB-CDIs have been extensively used as research tools to describe the language profiles of bilingual children (see O'Toole et al, 2017, for a recent cross-linguistic comparison on bilingual children) and clinical populations, for example children with genetic syndromes, autism spectrum disorders, and cochlear implants, among others (Charman, Drew, Baird, & Baird, 2003;Deckers, Van Zaalen, Mens, Van Balkom, & Verhoeven, 2016;Thal, DesJardin, & Eisenberg, 2007). These studies confirmed the usefulness of the MB-CDIs in describing lexical development trajectories and in highlighting a strong relationship between lexical and grammatical skills, also in bilingual children and in children with atypical development.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In response to the variation they found in their study, Deckers et al. (2016) recommended use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for Children and Youth to create a profile of communication to determine which supports are needed for each child's unique constellation of body function, participation, activity, environmental and personal factors. We concur with this recommendation.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Moreover, as children with DS often have low speech intelligibility and intermittent hearing loss, augmenting spoken language with signed communication can be a useful support in a busy classroom, even for those who use largely spoken language (Faragher et al, 2020). In response to the variation they found in their study, Deckers et al (2016) recommended use of the International Classification of Functioning, Disability and Health for Children and Youth to create a profile of communication to determine which supports are needed for each child's unique constellation of body function, participation, activity, environmental and personal factors. We concur with this recommendation.…”
Section: Individual Differences In Expressive Vocabulary Developmentmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…In Dutch clinical and educational practice, where the present study was conducted, sign supported Dutch (SSD), fingerspelling and key-word signing, are commonly used in young children with DS. As a result these children use manual sign systems as an important mode of communication (Deckers, Van Zaalen, Mens, Van Balkom, & Verhoeven, 2016a). The signs used in SSD stem are from the sign language of the Netherlands and are therefore actual signs and not just (deictic or representational) gestures.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The signs used in SSD stem are from the sign language of the Netherlands and are therefore actual signs and not just (deictic or representational) gestures. Assessment of vocabulary size in these children with DS should therefore also incorporate their manual sign vocabulary size (Deckers et al, 2016a).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%