Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home

A long-term predictive validity study: Can the CDI Short Form be used to predict language and early literacy skills four years later?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  31 July 2012


DILARA DENIZ CAN
Affiliation:
University of Washington
MARIKA GINSBURG-BLOCK
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
ROBERTA MICHNICK GOLINKOFF
Affiliation:
University of Delaware
KATHRYN HIRSH-PASEK
Affiliation:
Temple University
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

This longitudinal study examined the predictive validity of the MacArthur Communicative Developmental Inventories-Short Form (CDI-SF), a parent report questionnaire about children's language development (Fenson, Pethick, Renda, Cox, Dale & Reznick, 2000). Data were first gathered from parents on the CDI-SF vocabulary scores for seventy-six children (mean age=1 ; 10). Four years later (mean age=6 ; 1), children were assessed on language outcomes (expressive vocabulary, syntax, semantics and pragmatics) and code-related skills, including phonemic awareness, word recognition and decoding skills. Hierarchical regression analyses revealed that early expressive vocabulary accounted for 17% of the variance in picture vocabulary, 11% of the variance in syntax, and 7% of the variance in semantics, while not accounting for any variance in pragmatics in kindergarten. CDI-SF scores did not predict code-related skills in kindergarten. The importance of early vocabulary skills for later language development and CDI-SF as a valuable research tool are discussed.


Type
Articles
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below.

References

Bates, E., Dale, P. S. & Thal, D. (1995). Individual differences and their implications for theories of language development. In Fletcher, P. & MacWhinney, B. (eds), Handbook of child language, 96151. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Brackenbury, T. & Pye, C. (2005). Semantic deficits in children with language impairments: Issues for clinical assessment. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools 36, 516.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Corkum, V. & Dunham, P. (1996). The Communicative Development Inventory – WORDS Short Form as an index of language production. Journal of Child Language 23, 515–28.Google Scholar
Dickinson, D., Golinkoff, R. M. & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2010). Speaking out for language: Why language is central to reading development. Educational Researcher 39, 305310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickinson, D., McCabe, A., Anastasopoulos, L., Peisner-Feinberg, E. & Poe, M. (2003). The comprehensive language approach to early literacy: Interrelationships among vocabulary, phonological sensitivity, and print knowledge among preschool-aged children. Journal of Educational Psychology 95, 465–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dionne, G., Dale, P., Boivin, M. & Plomin, R. (2003). Genetic evidence for bidirectional effects of early lexical and grammatical development. Child Development 74, 394412.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dixon, J. A. & Marchman, V. A. (2007). Grammar and lexicon: Developmental ordering in language acquisition. Child Development 78, 190212.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dunham, P. & Dunham, F. (1992). Lexical development during middle infancy: A mutually driven infant–caregiver process. Developmental Psychology 28, 414–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Feldman, H. M., Dale, P. S., Campbell, T. F., Colborn, D. K., Kurs-Lasky, M., Rockette, H. E. & Paradise, J. L. (2005). Concurrent and predictive validity of parent reports of child language at ages 2 and 3 years. Child Development 76, 856–68.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Feldman, H. M., Dollaghan, C. A., Campbell, T. F., Kurs-Lasky, M., Janosky, J. E. & Paradise, J. L. (2000). Measurement properties of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories at ages one and two years. Child Development 71, 310–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. J. & Pethick, S. J. (1994). Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 59, 1185.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenson, L., Marchman, V. A., Thal, D. J., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S. & Bates, E. (2007). The MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories: User's guide and technical manual, 2nd edn.Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
Fenson, L., Pethick, S., Renda, C., Cox, J., Dale, P. S. & Reznick, J. S. (2000). Short-form versions of the MacArthur Communicative Developmental Inventories. Applied Psycholinguistics 21, 95116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girolametto, L., Wiigs, M., Smyth, R., Weitzman, E. & Pearce, P. S. (2001). Children with a history of expressive vocabulary delay: Outcomes at 5 years of age. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 10, 358–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Good, R. H., Kaminski, R. A. & Smith, S. (2002). Phoneme segmentation fluency, letter naming fluency, and nonsense word fluency. In Good, R. H. & Kaminski, R. A. (eds), Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills, 6th edn.Eugene, OR: Institute for the Development of Educational Achievement.Google Scholar
Hall, N. E. & Segarra, V. R. (2007). Predicting academic performance in children with language impairment: The role of parent report. Journal of Communication Disorders 40, 8295.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Harris, J., Golinkoff, R. M. & Hirsh-Pasek, K. (2012). Lessons from the crib for the classroom: How children really learn vocabulary. In Neuman, S. B. & Dickinson, D. K. (eds), Handbook of early literacy research, vol. 3, 4965. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Hart, B. & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
Heilmann, J., Weismer, S. E., Evans, J. & Hollar, C. (2005). Utility of the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory in identifying language abilities of late-talking and typically developing toddlers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology 14, 4051.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hirsh-Pasek, K. & Golinkoff, R. (in press). How babies talk: Six principles of early language development. To appear in Odom, S., Pungello, E. & Gardner-Neblett, N. (eds), Re-visioning the beginning: Developmental and health science contributions to infant/toddler programs for children and families living in poverty. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Lee, J. (2011). Size matters: Early vocabulary as a predictor of language and literacy competence. Applied Psycholinguistics 32, 6992.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marchman, V. A., Martinez-Sussmann, C. & Dale, P. (2004). The language-specific nature of grammatical development: Evidence from bilingual language learners. Developmental Science 7, 212–24.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McCabe, P. C. & Marshall, D. J. (2006). Measuring the social competence of preschool children with specific language impairment: Correspondence among informant ratings and behavioral observations. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education 26, 234–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nation, K. & Snowling, M. J. (2004). Beyond phonological skills: Broader language skills contribute to the development of reading. Journal of Research in Reading 27, 342–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
NICHD Early Child Care Research Network (2005). Pathways to reading: The role of oral language in the transition to reading. Developmental Psychology 41, 428–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pan, B. A., Rowe, M. L., Spier, E. & Tamis-Lemonda, C. (2004). Measuring productive vocabulary of toddlers in low-income families: Concurrent and predictive validity of three sources of data. Journal of Child Language 31, 587608.Google Scholar
Rescorla, L. & Alley, A. (2001). Validation of the Language Development Survey (LDS): A parent report tool for identifying language delay in toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research 44, 434–45.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Ring, E. D. & Fenson, L. (2000). The correspondence between parent report and child performance for receptive and expressive vocabulary beyond infancy. First Language 20, 141–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, J. E., Burchinal, M. & Durham, M. (1999). Parents' report of vocabulary and grammatical development of African American preschoolers: Child and environmental associations. Child Development 70, 92106.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Scarborough, H. S. (2001). Connecting early language and literacy to later reading disabilities: Evidence, theory, and practice. In Neuman, S. B. & Dickinson, D. K. (eds), Handbook of early literacy research, 97110. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Seymour, H. N., Roeper, T. W. & DeVilliers, J. (2005). The Diagnostic Evaluation of Language Variation, Norm Referenced: Examiner's manual. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corporation.Google Scholar
Shevell, M., Majnemer, A., Platt, R. W., Webster, R. & Birnbaum, R. (2005). Developmental and functional outcomes in children with global developmental delay or developmental language impairment. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 47, 678–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shi, R. & Lepage, M. (2008). The effect of functional morphemes on word segmentation in preverbal infants. Developmental Science 11, 407413.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Smith, L. B. (2000). Learning how to learn words: An associative crane. In Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Bloom, L., Smith, L. B., Woodard, A. L., Akhtar, N., Tomasello, M., & Hollich, G. (eds), Becoming a word learner: A debate on lexical acquisition, 5180. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snowling, M., Bishop, D. & Stothard, S. (2000). Is preschool language impairment a risk factor for dyslexia in adolescence? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines 41, 587600.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Storch, S. A. & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychology 38, 934–47.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tunmer, W. E., Herriman, M. L. & Nesdale, A. R. (1988). Metalinguistic abilities and beginning reading. Reading Research Quarterly 23, 134–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
University of Oregon Center on Teaching and Learning (2008). Dibels benchmark goals. Available at: https://dibels.uoregon.edu/docs/benchmarkgoals.pdf (last accessed 26 March 2010).Google Scholar
Whitehurst, G. J. & Lonigan, C. J. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development 69, 848–72.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S. & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock–Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities and Achievement. Itasca, IL: Riverside Publishing.Google Scholar

Usage data cannot currently be displayed.

Hostname: page-component-57c975d4c7-k5t5x Total loading time: 4.457 Render date: 2020-11-24T09:57:35.071Z Query parameters: { "hasAccess": "0", "openAccess": "0", "isLogged": "0", "lang": "en" } Feature Flags last update: Tue Nov 24 2020 09:54:33 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) Feature Flags: { "metrics": false, "peerReview": true, "crossMark": true, "comments": false, "relatedCommentaries": false, "subject": true, "clr": false, "languageSwitch": false }

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

A long-term predictive validity study: Can the CDI Short Form be used to predict language and early literacy skills four years later?
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

A long-term predictive validity study: Can the CDI Short Form be used to predict language and early literacy skills four years later?
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

A long-term predictive validity study: Can the CDI Short Form be used to predict language and early literacy skills four years later?
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *