Comprehension of Written Grammar Test: Reliability and Known-Groups Validity Study With Hearing and Deaf and Hard-of-Hearing Students
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The aim of the current study was to gather validation evidence for the Comprehension of Written Grammar (CWG; Easterbrooks, 2010) receptive test of 26 grammatical structures of English print for use with children who are deaf and hard of hearing (DHH). Reliability and validity data were collected for 98 participants (49 DHH and 49 hearing) in Grades 2-6. The objectives were to: (a) examine 4-week test-retest reliability data; and (b) provide evidence of known-groups validity by examining expected differences between the groups on the CWG vocabulary pretest and main test, as well as selected structures. Results indicated excellent test-retest reliability estimates for CWG test scores. DHH participants performed statistically significantly lower on the CWG vocabulary pretest and main test than the hearing participants. Significantly lower performance by DHH participants on most expected grammatical structures (e.g., basic sentence patterns, auxiliary "be" singular/plural forms, tense, comparatives, and complementation) also provided known groups evidence. Overall, the findings of this study showed strong evidence of the reliability of scores and known group-based validity of inferences made from the CWG.
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 | 0.007 | 0.018 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".