Psychometric properties of the English language version of the C-BiLLT evaluated in typically developing Canadian children
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: This study aimed to 1) investigate the convergent and discriminant validity, internal consistency, and test-retest reliability of the Canadian English version of the Computer-Based instrument for Low motor Language Testing (C-BiLLT-CAN), and 2) explore feasibility of the C-BiLLT assessment for children with cerebral palsy (CP) and complex communication needs in the Canadian health care context. METHODS: Eighty typically developing children between 1.5 and 8.5 years of age completed the C-BiLLT-CAN, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-IV (PPVT-4), the receptive language sub-test of the New Reynell Developmental Language Scales (NRDLS), and/or the Raven's 2. Correlations between raw scores were calculated for estimates of convergent and discriminant validity. Internal consistency was calculated for all items and separately for items pertaining to vocabulary and grammar. To calculate the standard error of measurement (SEM) and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC), 33 participants were re-tested with the C-BiLLT within three weeks. Feasibility was explored with nine participants with CP. RESULTS: C-BiLLT-CAN's convergent validity was good to excellent (Spearman's rho > 0.78) and discriminant validity was higher than hypothesized (Spearman's rho > 0.8). Internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha = 0.96), test-retest reliability (ICC > 0.9), and measurement error (SEM < 5%) were excellent. The feasibility study could not be fully completed due to the COVID-19 pandemic. Preliminary data demonstrated some technical and practical barriers for using the C-BiLLT in children with CP in Canada. CONCLUSION: The C-BiLLT-CAN showed good to excellent psychometric properties in a sample of typically developing children, indicating that it is an adequate test for measuring language comprehension in English-speaking Canadian children. Further research is needed to investigate the feasibility of the C-BiLLT-CAN in children with CP.
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 | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".