A Comparative Study of Language Development in Monolingual and Bilingual Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study sought to analyze how the process of language development differed between a group of monolingual and bilingual children with autism spectrum disorders (n = 201) who were aged between 5-8 years and hailed from different countries around the world. To achieve this objective, a self-designed five-point Likert scale covering six different language domains was developed to measure the level of difficulty experienced by the participants. The measurement of the level of these difficulties was conducted based on reliable statistical analysis methods. The participants in the two groups were then compared on the basis of these difficulties. No statistically significant differences between the two groups were observed in any language domain. While mild differences within the items of main domains were indeed observed, they were deemed to be statistically non-significant. The results of this study suggest that both monolingualism and bilingualism do not have any detrimental effects on the language development abilities of children with autism spectrum disorders. Both groups were observed to experience the same level of difficulty in their language development process. This study’s limitations, implications, and other research suggestions have been discussed in detail as well.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".