Early Communication Indicator: An analysis with three Portuguese toddlers
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Professionals need efficient tools in early childhood communication development to identify infants and toddlers who are at risk of communication disorders or language delays. In Portugal, this project was carried out to respond to these needs due to a lack of these resources and a high prevalence of children at risk for communication problems at early ages. This paper describes the first steps to adapt the Early Communication Indicator (ECI) for the Portuguese population. The ECI is a play-based expressive communication measure for infants and toddlers aged 6 to 42 months. The ECI was originally developed in the U.S. and was designed for use by service providers to provide information about growth in communication, to help in intervention decision making, and to be administered in any language. This paper analyzes the ECI results of three Portuguese children in relation to their communication progression, based on a one-year longitudinal study. The ECI was administered when children were 17, 24, and 30 months of age. The ECI results showed that two of the children follow the typical progression of communication acquisition, with acquisition of earlier prelinguistic skills preceding growth in spoken language. The ECI results for the other child showed a very different and slower progression in the communication skills. The data obtained provided just an initial demonstration of the use of the ECI with Portuguese children. More research is needed into the development of the ECI in the Portuguese context, such as the development of a nationally representative, normative sample. Therefore, a discussion of what is needed in research and practice to advance this project is provided.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
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".