The Language Proficiency Profile-2: Assessment of the Global Communication Skills of Deaf Children Across Languages and Modalities of Expression
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Data are presented from two studies that investigate the developmental trends and concurrent validity of a measure of language and communication skills for deaf children, the Language Proficiency Profile-2 (LPP-2), developed by Bebko and McKinnon (1993). The LPP-2 was designed to evaluate the overall linguistic/communicative skills of deaf children, independent of any specific language or modality of expression. It focuses on the totality of the children's communication skills. Experiment 1 investigated developmental trends of the LPP-2 for both deaf and hearing children, studying a combined sample of deaf and hearing children from the United States and Canada. Experiment 2 investigated the relationship between the LPP-2 and two commonly used measures to assess deaf children on language development (Preschool Language Scale-3) and early reading skills (Test of Early Reading Ability-Deaf/Hard-of-Hearing). Results from the two studies indicate that the LPP-2 has good utility not only as a measure of overall language development but also as a predictor of achievement for English language and early reading skills.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".