The measure matters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish–English bilingual children

Bedore, Lisa M.; Peña, Elizabeth D.; Summers, Connie; Boerger, Karin M.; Reséndiz, María; Greene, Kai; Bohman, Thomas M.; Gillam, Ronald B.

doi:10.1017/s1366728912000090

Cited by 276 publications

(322 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

251

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The extant literature provides robust evidence that relative language exposure is an important source of variability for bilingual language proficiency (Bedore et al, 2012;David & Wei, 2008;Eilers, Pearson, & Cobo-Lewis, 2006;Pearson, Fernandez, Lewedeg, & Oller, 1997;Place & Hoff, 2011;Poulin-Dubois, Bialystok, Blaye, Polonia & Yott, 2013). However, assessment of relative language exposure in bilingual infants and children who are unable to report on their language experience presents a unique problem for researchers and clinicians.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Anda

Bosch

Poulin‐Dubois

et al. 2016

J Speech Lang Hear Res

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose: The aim of this study was to develop the Language Exposure Assessment Tool (LEAT) and to examine its cross-linguistic validity, reliability, and utility. The LEAT is a computerized interview-style assessment that requests parents to estimate language exposure. The LEAT yields an automatic calculation of relative language exposure and captures qualitative aspects of early language experience. Method: Relative language exposure as reported on the LEAT and vocabulary size at 17 months of age were measured in a group of bilingual language learners with varying levels of exposure to French and English or Spanish and English.Results: The LEAT demonstrates high internal consistency and criterion validity. In addition, the LEAT's calculation of relative language exposure explains variability in vocabulary size above a single overall parent estimate. Conclusions: The LEAT is a valid and efficient tool for characterizing early language experience across cultural settings and levels of language exposure. The LEAT could be a useful tool in clinical contexts to aid in determining whether assessment and intervention should be conducted in one or more languages.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Anda

Bosch

Poulin‐Dubois

et al. 2016

J Speech Lang Hear Res

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Because language proficiency and language ability are difficult to disambiguate in a sample of children with potential SLI, we determined language dominance on the basis of detailed parent and teacher interviews of children's language exposure and use (Gutierrez-Clellen & Kreiter, 2003). Language exposure, use, and history are highly related to children's language performance (Pearson, Fernández, Lewedeg, & Oller, 1997), but the nature of the relationship varies by domain (Bedore et al, 2012;Bohman et al, 2010). Thus, our approach enabled evaluation of language performance across children relative to their linguistic environment.…”

Section: The Longitudinal Portion Of the Studymentioning

confidence: 99%

Identification of Specific Language Impairment in Bilingual Children: I. Assessment in English

Gillam

Peña

Bedore

et al. 2013

J Speech Lang Hear Res

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose-This study was designed to derive cut scores for English testing for use in identifying specific language impairment (SLI) in bilingual children who were learning English as a second language.Method-In a 1-gate design, 167 children received comprehensive language assessments in English and Spanish during their first-grade year. The reference standard was identification by a team of expert bilingual speech-language pathologists. Receiver operating curve (ROC) analyses were used to identify the optimal prediction model for SLI. (Tomblin, Records, & Zhang, 1996) yielded a sensitivity of .95 and a specificity of .45 (LR+ = 1.73, LR− = 0.11, and AUC = .79) for our bilinguals. Revised cutoff scores yielded a sensitivity of .86 and a specificity of .68 (LR+ = 2.67, LR− = 0.21, and AUC = .77). An optimal prediction model yielded a sensitivity of .81 and a specificity of .81 (LR+ = 4.37, LR− = 0.23 and AUC = .85). Results-The original, English EpiSLI criteria Conclusion-The results of English testing could be used to make a reasonably accurate diagnostic decision for bilingual children who had attended public school for at least 1 year and were using English at least 30% of the time. Keywordsassessment; bilingualism; children; language disorders; specific language impairment; primary language impairments Diagnosing specific language impairment (SLI) in children is difficult under the best of circumstances. The most common practice is to base diagnostic decisions on low scores on standardized language measures. Unfortunately, publishers of standardized tests rarely provide empirically based cutoff scores that yield the highest levels of sensitivity (correct identification of children with SLI) and specificity (correct identification of typically developing children). In a review of 43 commercially available child language tests, Spaulding, Plante, and Farinella (2006) found that many publishers recommended arbitrary Correspondence to Ron Gillam: ron.gillam@usu.edu. Disclosure: Ronald B. Gillam has a financial interest in the Test of Narrative Language (Gillam & Pearson, 2004). HHS Public AccessAuthor manuscript J Speech Lang Hear Res. Author manuscript; available in PMC 2018 April 16.Published in final edited form as: J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2013 December ; 56(6): 1813-1823. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2013. Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptAuthor ManuscriptAuthor Manuscript cutoff scores that were likely to identify typical children as impaired. Spaulding et al. (2006) concluded that there is a need for more research that derives empirically based cutoff scores for identifying SLI in specific populations of children.Perhaps the most influential study of the diagnosis of SLI was a large-scale epidemiological study by Tomblin, Records, and Zhang (1996). Their diagnostic criteria, known as the EpiSLI model, was based on an the analysis of five composite scores (expressive, receptive, vocabulary, grammar, and narration) that were derived from performance on the Test of Language Development-Primary (Newcomer & Ham...

show abstract

“…However, they were only more successful in correctly interpreting bare NPs and not definite NPs. Several studies have found that variations in the input play a role in the rate of acquisition of child L2 learners [26,27] and bilingual children [28][29][30][31][32]. Variation in the input can have an effect on the morphosyntactic domain as well as on the semantic domain [28].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Are Lions Green?: Child L2 Learners’ Interpretation of English Generics and Definite Determiners

Morales-Reyes

Arechabaleta-Regulez

2017

Languages

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:The aim of this small-scale study (22 participants) was to analyze how L1-Spanish L2-English children interpret English noun phrases (NPs) by taking into consideration two variables: children's age and amount of input. These two variables were studied in relation to children's developmental tendencies and language transfer. Children begin with an innate predisposition for the generic interpretation, which leads them to incorrectly interpret some specific NPs. In contrast, transfer from the L1 explains the incorrect mapping between NP and interpretation in adult L2 speakers. We examined 22 L1-Spanish L2-English children and a control group of L1-English children on their interpretation of English NPs through an online task. Results revealed that L2 children's interpretations significantly differ from the interpretations of the control group. We propose that like L1 children, child L2 learners will have to overcome their natural predisposition to interpret NPs as generic. However, child L2 learners must also overcome transfer effects from their L1. Additionally, results seem to suggest that the amount of input plays a role in learners' interpretations. We propose that children who receive similar amounts of input in their two languages become aware of the differences faster, particularly in the forms where there is no overlapping between the languages (i.e., bare NPs).

show abstract

The measure matters: Language dominance profiles across measures in Spanish–English bilingual children

Cited by 276 publications

References 68 publications

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

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

Identification of Specific Language Impairment in Bilingual Children: I. Assessment in English

Are Lions Green?: Child L2 Learners’ Interpretation of English Generics and Definite Determiners

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About