Dialogic book reading intervention for children with DLD across different languages and cultural settings: An international feasibility study
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Intervention studies targeting developmental language disorder (DLD) have been conducted mainly with monolingual English-speaking children and bilingual children learning English. There is a need to explore the application of current methods to more languages. However, adapting an existing intervention to other languages can be a daunting task as it is not necessarily clear which aspects need modification. This article presents pilot studies that were conducted to explore the applicability of dialogic book reading (DBR) to three languages and countries, and to clarify methodological aspects of the intervention in preparation for the development of a protocol for a larger international efficacy study to be conducted across several languages and countries. The article describes an iterative process conducted by an international team, which included group work on the creation and adaptation of intervention materials, as well as three feasibility clinical trials conducted at different stages of the iterative process in Bulgaria, Austria and Lebanon. Each trial addressed methodological aspects of DBR implementation, including the number and types of books to use in total and per session, the length of sessions, the number and type of target words in total and per session and the types of probes used to keep track of intervention gains. In addition to shedding light on methodological aspects of the implementation of DBR, the study describes the iterative process undertaken by the research team, which could serve as a model or inspiration to other international teams.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it