Construct validity of the focus on the outcomes of communication under six (FOCUS) total and profile scores for multilingual preschoolers: Considering functional speech skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: To conduct an exploratory study to establish construct validity of the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six (FOCUS) in the Jamaican context for FOCUS Total and Profile scores. METHOD: Parents of a representative sample of 3-to-6-year-old Jamaican Creole (JC)-English-speaking simultaneous bilingual children completed the FOCUS in English, and the Intelligibility in Context Scale (ICS) in JC and in English. Children completed the Diagnostic Evaluation of Articulation and Phonology (DEAP) in both languages. Percent phonemes, consonants, and vowels correct were calculated using single word responses to DEAP items. Pearson correlations were completed to describe relationships between measurement scores. RESULT: Convergent validity was found for FOCUS Total and ICS/JC scores. Convergent and divergent validity were found for specific FOCUS Profile scores and ICS/JC scores. Minimal evidence of convergent validity was found with FOCUS Total scores and transcription-based measures of speech production in JC and in English. Convergent and divergent validity were found between specific FOCUS Profile scores and some transcription-based measures of speech production in JC and in English. CONCLUSION: This study provides evidence of construct validity for FOCUS Total and Profile scores. It also provides validity evidence for FOCUS scores in a multilingual context using a representative sample of children that serves to broaden the range of applicability of the FOCUS.
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 | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 | 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".