Reliability, validity and developmental sensitivity of the Language Use Inventory (LUI) in the Chinese context
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
BACKGROUND: Pragmatics has generally been defined as the ability to use language in social situations, it is commonly regarded as the third major component of language ability. To date, there is no tool for assessing early pragmatic development of Chinese-speaking children. AIMS: To describe the translation of the Language Use Inventory (LUI) from English to Mandarin Chinese and to report findings on the Chinese version's reliability, validity and developmental sensitivity. METHODS & PROCEDURES: The original English version of the LUI was translated into Mandarin Chinese. Parents of 177 typically developing (TD) toddlers and preschool children completed the inventory to examine its internal reliability and construct validity and how scores differed across ages and sexes. A total of 31 parents out of the 177 completed the LUI-Mandarin, again within 4 weeks, to assess test-retest reliability. To examine discriminative validity, 43 parents of age- and sex-matched TD children and children with autism spectrum disorder (ASD) recruited from Nanjing Brain Hospital affiliated with Nanjing Medical University completed the LUI-Mandarin. OUTCOMES & RESULTS: Cronbach's alpha values for the LUI-Mandarin's three parts and for 11 of 12 LUI-Mandarin subscales were 0.707-0.992, with most values in the 0.825-0.992 range. Test-retest reliability ranged from 0.66 to 0.95, indicating good to excellent reliability. Factor analysis of the LUI-Mandarin revealed two different factors, and the total variance explained was 74.38%. The LUI-Mandarin total scores and subscale scores increased with age for both boys and girls, providing evidence of the inventory's developmental sensitivity. Girls, however, had higher total scores than boys at earlier ages (18-23 months). The results of the discriminant validity study revealed that performance was significantly lower in the ASD group than in the TD group with respect to LUI total scores and subscale scores (except for subscale A). CONCLUSIONS & IMPLICATIONS: The LUI-Mandarin is the first and only questionnaire available in China that evaluates the pragmatic language skills of children aged between 18 and 47 months. The results of the study show that the LUI-Mandarin is a valid and reliable tool for Chinese toddlers and preschool children. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject The LUI is a parent-report questionnaire that can provide comprehensive information about very young children's communicative competence. It is widely used both for assessment and to guide intervention. Additionally, it has been translated into French, Italian, Polish, Arabic, Portuguese and Norwegian and it shows good reliability and validity. What this paper adds to existing knowledge In the present study we describe the translation of the LUI from English to Mandarin Chinese and report findings on the Chinese version's reliability, validity and developmental sensitivity. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? The LUI-Mandarin is the first and only questionnaire available in China that can evaluate pragmatic language skills of children aged between 18 and 47 months. The results show that the LUI-Mandarin is a valid and reliable tool for use with Chinese toddlers and preschool children.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,001 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».