The Assessment of Early Pragmatic Development: A Study of the Reliability and Validity of the Language Use Inventory-Italian
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose Pragmatics is receiving much attention in both the fields of developmental and clinical psychology; however, there is a dearth of instruments to assess pragmatic abilities specifically among young toddler-age children. The aim of the current study was to test the psychometric properties of the Italian version of the Language Use Inventory (LUI), named the LUI-Italian, a parent report measure assessing pragmatic language development in children 18–47 months of age. Method Parents of Italian-speaking children who ranged in age between 18 and 47 months completed the LUI-Italian at T1 ( N = 389) and 1 week later ( N = 53). At T1, children were also administered the First Language Test (Test del Primo Linguaggio [TPL]), a direct measure of pragmatics, vocabulary, and syntax. Results Cronbach's alpha values were at or above acceptable levels. Factor analysis and test–retest confirmed the strong structure and reliability of the LUI-Italian. Some evidence for concurrent validity was found, as shown by associations between the LUI-Italian and the TPL. Conclusions The LUI-Italian demonstrated good psychometric properties relating to reliability, thus providing a sound basis for proceeding to a standardization study, and supporting cross-cultural comparison of pragmatic development and further exploration of profiles of pragmatic competence for children displaying language impairments or delay. Future studies need to further test concurrent, divergent, and predictive validity of the LUI-Italian.
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 | 0.004 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".