Exploring Predictors of Expressive Grammar Across Different Assessment Tasks in Preschoolers With or Without DLD
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Predictors of expressive grammar were compared in formal and naturalistic assessment tasks for children with typically developing (TD) language and with Developmental Langauge Disorder (DLD). Standardized expressive language assessments were administered to 110 preschoolers. The parents of these children reported whether or not they were concerned about their child’s speech and language development. Stepwise regression analyses revealed receptive language as the only significant predictor of expressive grammar across assessment tasks. For TD preschoolers, receptive vocabulary and grammar accounted for expressive grammar performance in the formal task; however, only receptive grammar accounted for performance in the naturalistic task. For DLD preschoolers, only receptive vocabulary accounted for expressive grammar performance across both tasks. Nonverbal IQ and parent concern did not predict expressive grammar performance in either task. Implications for treatment of preschool DLD using relative strengths in vocabulary are discussed.
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.
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 it