Translation of the Parental Inventory “Language Use Inventory” into Brazilian Portuguese
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To translate and adapt the assessment tool Language Use Inventory from English to Brazilian Portuguese. METHODS: The study was carried out in two stages. Once the publisher's authorization was given, the process of translation and back-translation of the protocol was initiated, adapting it to sociocultural aspects, such as expressions, names, and adequate examples in Brazilian Portuguese. In order to investigate the internal reliability of the translation process, the Cronbach's alpha coefficient was used. The second stage was a pilot study, in which the questionnaire was applied to 43 parents of children from 24 to 47 months old from a city in the State of São Paulo, Brazil. The results were analyzed according to the total score and to the subscales of the questionnaire. The variables age range and parental level of education were also analyzed. RESULTS: The analysis using the Cronbach's alpha coefficient showed high internal consistency (α>0,98) in almost all the subscales which means that the instrument adapted to Brazilian Portuguese can be used. In the pilot study, an age effect was found in the total score and in the LUI subscale scores, i.e., the older the children, the fewer gestures they used, with more words and syntactic constructions. CONCLUSION: The Brazilian-Portuguese version of the LUI questionnaire seems to be a reliable translation of the original and a reliable instrument to evaluate preschoolers' language pragmatics. After future detailed analyses, it will allow early diagnosis and intervention in children with language disorders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".