A population‐based study of communicative participation in preschool children with speech‐language impairments
Bibliographic record
Abstract
AIM: To develop statistical models of communicative participation development of preschool children and explore variations by level of function. METHOD: This was a secondary analysis of data from a longitudinal study of preschool children with speech and language impairments (n=46 872; age range 18-67mo, mean age [SD] 41.76mo [11.92]; 67% male) accessing publicly funded services in Ontario, Canada. Two measures were used: Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six (FOCUS), measuring changes in communicative participation skills, and the Communication Function Classification System (CFCS), classifying communicative function into one of five levels. We used mixed effects modeling to fit growth curves for children in each CFCS level. Models allowed for variation in initial FOCUS score at 18 months, rate of growth with age, and rate of acceleration/deceleration with age. RESULTS: Starting FOCUS score (18mo) varied inversely with CFCS level at entry to the program. Growth was initially rapid and then leveled off for children in Levels I to III. Growth was less rapid for children in Level IV, but leveled off, and was slow but continual for children in Level V. INTERPRETATION: This work can help us to move beyond traditional impairment-based thinking and shows that children can make meaningful communicative changes regardless of their function.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
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 teacher head, 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".