Spoken Communicative Intents Among 3- to 4.5-Year-Old French-Speaking Children: Procedure and Data From the Early Longitudinal Language and Neglect Study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Purpose: This study aimed to (a) provide speech-language pathologists and researchers with a play-based procedure to measure the expression of spoken communicative intents by children aged 3 to 4.5 years and (b) present indicators of these children's capacity to produce these intents in this context. Method: A method inspired by TRIAGE (Technique de Recherche d'Informations par Animation d'un Group d'Experts) allowed an advisory group of 16 speech-language pathologists to select and agree on definitions of intents to include in this procedure, among a set of 13 preselected intents based on the scientific literature. A longitudinal design including four measuring times was used to verify the production of these intents by 99 French-speaking children (46 boys; M age = 36.09 months) at 36, 42, 48, and 54 months using the Neighborhood Game, a previously developed elicitation procedure of communicative intents conducted within the context of symbolic play. For each measurement time, the average percentage of children who had produced each intent at least 3 times was calculated with a 95% confidence interval. Nonparametric analysis of variance for longitudinal data was carried out to verify progression with age. Results: A finalized list of eight communicative intents was selected along with their definition and a standardized script to elicit them during symbolic play. The production frequency of most intents showed significant progression between the first and the fourth measurement time. Arguing is the only intent that is still not produced by more than 90% of children at the age of 54 months. Conclusions: This study led to the development of an assessment procedure, which presents ecological validity and elicits the expression of eight communicative intents among 3- to 4.5-year-olds. This procedure can support the work of speech-language pathologists and researchers. The accompanying indicators of children's capacity to produce these intents at a given age in this kind of context are a notable addition to the knowledge on typical language development. Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.21844206
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 | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".