A Nonword Repetition Task Discriminates Typically Developing Italian-German Bilingual Children From Bilingual Children With Developmental Language Disorder: The Role of Language-Specific and Language-Non-specific Nonwords
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In bi- and monolingual children, nonword repetition tasks (NWRTs) differentiate between typically developing (TD) and children with Developmental Language Disorder (DLD). Language specificity is a crucial factor in nonword construction especially for multilingual children. While language-specific nonwords seem less artificial than non-specific nonwords, the application of language-specific phonemes may be less suitable for bilingual children who are exposed to the target language less than monolingual peers. This study evaluates the concurrent and predictive value of a novel, computerized NWRT implemented in the MuLiMi web-platform and its potential in the discrimination of bilingual children with and without DLD, investigating the role of nonwords' language specificity. Thirty-seven children (of whom 17 had an objective risk of phonological disorders) with at least one Italian-speaking parent, living and attending kindergartens in Germany were tested with the MuLiMi NWRT and German standardized language tests. Caregivers and kindergarten teachers filled in questionnaires. Fourteen of the children were re-tested after 8-12 months. The results suggest that the new test's concurrent and discriminative validity are good. Analysis of variance revealed highly significant differences between children with and without (an objective risk of) phonological disorders and a significant interaction between nonword specificity and risk group. Significant correlations of initial scores with follow-up scores collected after 8-12 months were also found, as well as correlations with improvements in language abilities. In conclusion, although both language-specific and language-non-specific nonword repetition can support DLD risk identification in bilingual children, language-specific stimuli appear to be particularly sensitive indicators. This is interpreted as confirming DLD children's reduced sensitivity to frequent, familiar characteristics of the linguistic stimuli. The test's discriminative and concurrent validity showed to be robust to various potentially influencing factors like patterns of language exposure.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".