2010
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2009/08-0132)
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Internal Validity and Acceptability of the Danish SI-3: A Language-Screening Instrument for 3-Year-Olds

Abstract: The SI-3 captures a variety of language skills and is good at differentiating children in the lower end of the tail; it is thereby suitable for population language screening, although results indicated the need for some revision.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
0

Year Published

2014
2014
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(23 citation statements)
references
References 24 publications
0
23
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Each child was assessed on a validated age-and gender-normed Danish language assessment instrument, administered by the usual childcare teacher (Bleses, Vach, Jørgensen, & Worm, 2010). The battery of language and preliteracy tests were familiar to teachers, as they are used for language assessment in most Danish municipalities; the test scores are used to assign each child a percentile score on which to base recommendations for language intervention.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Each child was assessed on a validated age-and gender-normed Danish language assessment instrument, administered by the usual childcare teacher (Bleses, Vach, Jørgensen, & Worm, 2010). The battery of language and preliteracy tests were familiar to teachers, as they are used for language assessment in most Danish municipalities; the test scores are used to assign each child a percentile score on which to base recommendations for language intervention.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The early detection of language disorder tools has well-documented limitations in the specialized literature [4], such as: (1) subjectivity of the person who completes the questionnaire or scale of values [33], and his/her previous knowledge or specific training in relation to linguistic skills; (2) inconsistencies between the teacher’s observations and the child’s capacity in evaluation tests [34,35], due to possible differences in the child’s linguistic conduct in spontaneous daily situations and to his/her execution during a formal evaluation, characterized by a major inflexibility [36]; and (3) trustworthiness of the predictive power of the questionnaires used due to the fact that they depend on the age of the children, where the estimations of teachers seem to be less trustworthy when smaller children are evaluated, in relation to the rapid cognitive and behavioral changes that they try out in these early ages [37,38]. …”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Using 100-item tests (110-item tests for Beijing Mandarin), the performance of the IRT version was compared with the American English (Fenson et al, 2000), Danish (Bleses et al, 2010), Beijing…”
Section: Comparisons With Established Short-form Versions Of Cdismentioning
confidence: 99%