Measurement properties of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories at ages one and two years
Measurement properties of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories at ages one and two years
复制标题
DOI：
10.1111/1467-8624.00146
复制
发表时间：
2000-03-01
影响因子：
4.6
通讯作者：
Paradise, JL
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Feldman, HM;Dollaghan, CA;Paradise, JL
在一项关于儿童发育与早期中耳炎相关的前瞻性研究中，我们对大量（N = 2,156）、社会人口统计学上不同的 1 岁和 2 岁儿童样本进行了麦克阿瑟沟通发展量表 (CDI)。作为解释 CDI 分数的先决条件，我们研究了清单的选定测量属性。专为 8 至 16 个月大儿童设计的 CDI/单词和手势 (CDI-WG) 以及专为 16 至 30 个月大儿童设计的 CDI/单词和句子 (CDI-WS) 分数随着月龄的增长而显着增加。在 CDI-WG 和 CDI-WS 的多个尺度上，标准差接近或超过平均值，反映了结果的广泛变化。根据种族、孕产妇教育和健康保险状况（作为收入的间接衡量标准），平均分存在统计学上的显着差异，但差异的方向性在不同的清单或不同的 CDI-WS 尺度上并不一致。 CDI-WG 和 CDI-WS 之间的相关性范围为 0.18 至 0.39。我们的研究结果表明，CDI 反映了 10 至 27 个月年龄范围内语言发展的进展。然而，研究人员和临床医生在使用 CDI 结果来识别有语言缺陷风险的儿童个体、比较具有不同社会人口特征的儿童群体或评估干预措施的效果时应谨慎行事。
In a prospective study of child development in relation to early-life otitis media, we administered the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories (CDI) to a large (N = 2,156), sociodemographically diverse sample of 1- and 2-year-old children. As a prerequisite for interpreting the CDI scores, we studied selected measurement properties of the inventories. Scores on the CDI/Words and Gestures (CDI-WG), designed for children 8 to 16 months old, and on the CDI/Words and Sentences (CDI-WS), designed for children 16 to 30 months old, increased significantly with months of age. On several scales of both CDI-WG and CDI-WS, standard deviations approximated or exceeded mean values, reflecting wide variability in results. Statistically significant differences in mean scores were found according to race, maternal education, and health insurance status as an indirect measure of income, but the directionality of differences was not consistent, across inventories or across scales of the CDI-WS. Correlations between CDI-WG and CDI-WS ranged from .18 to .39. Our findings suggest that the CDI reflects the progress of language development within the age range 10 to 27 months. However, researchers and clinicians should exercise caution in using results of the CDI to identify individual children at risk for language deficits, to compare groups of children with different sociodemographic profiles, or to evaluate the effects of interventions.