Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-xtgtn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T12:05:11.943Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

What is ‘word understanding’ for the parent of a one-year-old? Matching the difficulty of a lexical comprehension task to parental CDI report*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 December 2008

SUZY STYLES  and
KIM PLUNKETT
SUZY STYLES*
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford
KIM PLUNKETT
Affiliation:
Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford
*
Address for Correspondence: Suzy Styles, Department of Experimental Psychology, University of Oxford, South Parks Road, Oxford, OX1 3UD, UK. e-mail: suzy.styles@psy.ox.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Is parental report of comprehension valid for individual words? If so, how well must an infant know a word before their parents will report it as ‘understood’? We report an experiment in which parental report predicts infant performance in a referent identification task at 1 ; 6. Unlike in previous research of this kind (i.e. Houston-Price, Mather & Sakkalou, 2007), infants saw items only once, and image pairs were taxonomic sisters. The match between parental report and infant behaviour provides evidence of the item-level accuracy of both measures of lexical comprehension, and informs our understanding of how British parents interpret standardized Communicative Development Inventories (CDIs).

Type
Brief Research Report
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 36 , Issue 4 , September 2009 , pp. 895 - 908
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

This research was supported by a Clarendon Fund Bursary to Suzy Styles, and grants to Kim Plunkett from the ESRC (Grant No. RES-000-23-1322) and the Leverhulme Trust. The authors would like to thank the staff of the John Radcliffe Hospital for their ongoing support.

References

REFERENCES

Barrett, M. (1995). Early lexical development. In Fletcher, P. & MacWhinney, B. (eds) The Handbook of Child Language. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
Dale, P. S., Bates, E., Reznick, J. S. & Morisset, C. (1989). The validity of a parent report instrument of child language at twenty months. Journal of Child Language 16, 239–49.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, 1–173.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Golinkoff, R. M., Hirsh-Pasek, K., Cauley, K. M. & Gordon, L. (1987). The eyes have it: Lexical and syntactic comprehension in a new paradigm. Journal of Child Language 14, 23–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golinkoff, R. M., Mervis, C. B. & Hirsch-Pasek, K. (1994). Early object labels: The case for a developmental lexical principles framework. Journal of Child Language 21, 125–55.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hamilton, A., Plunkett, K. & Schafer, G. (2000). Infant vocabulary development assessed with a British communicative development inventory. Journal of Child Language 27, 689–705.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Houston-Price, C., Mather, E. & Sakkalou, E. (2007). Discrepancy between parental report of infants' receptive vocabulary and infants' behaviour in a preferential looking task. Journal of Child Language 34, 701–724.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Markman, E. M. (1989). Categorization and naming in children. Cambridge: MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mather, E. & Plunkett, K. (in press). Learning words over time: The role of stimulus repetition in mutual exclusivity. Infancy.Google Scholar
Meints, K., Plunkett, K. & Harris, P. (1999). When does an ostrich become a bird? The role of typicality in early word comprehension. Developmental Psychology 35, 1072–78.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Merriman, W. E. & Bowman, L. L. (1989). The mutual exclusivity bias in children's word learning. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 54, 1–132.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moss, H. E. & Older, L. (1996). Birkbeck Word Association Norms. Hove, UK: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Rosch, E. (1975). Cognitive representations of semantic categories. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General 104, 192–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rosch, E., Mervis, C. B., Gray, W. D., Johnson, D. M. & Boyes-Braem, P. (1976). Basic objects in natural categories. Cognitive Psychology 8, 382–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiles, J. (1994). On the nature of informant judgments in inventory measures: … and so what is it you want to know? Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 59, 180–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tomasello, M. & Mervis, C. B. (1994). The instrument is great, but measuring comprehension is still a problem. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 59, 174–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar