Psychometric properties of FVMC (Guo et al., 2019)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<b>Purpose: </b>The purpose of this study was to provide reference data and evaluate the psychometric properties for the finite verb morphology composite (FVMC) measure in children between 4 and 9 years of age from the database of the Edmonton Narrative Norms Instrument (ENNI; Schneider, Dubé, & Hayward, 2005).<b>Method: </b>Participants included 377 children between age 4 and age 9, including 300 children with typical language and 77 children with language impairment (LI). Narrative samples were collected using a story generation task. FVMC scores were computed from the samples. Split-half reliability, concurrent criterion validity, and diagnostic accuracy for FVMC were further evaluated.<b>Results: </b>Children's performance on FVMC increased significantly between age 4 and age 9 in the typical language and LI groups. Moreover, the correlation coefficients for the split-half reliability and concurrent criterion validity of FVMC were medium to large (<i>r</i>s ≥ .429, <i>p</i>s < .001) at each age level. The diagnostic accuracy of FVMC was good or acceptable from age 4 to age 7, but it dropped to a poor level at age 8 and age 9.<b>Conclusion: </b>With the empirical evidence, FVMC is appropriate for identifying children with LI between age 4 and age 7. The reference data of FVMC could also be used for monitoring treatment progress.<b><br></b><b>Supplemental Material S1. </b>Description of the stories in the ENNI protocol. <br><b>Supplemental Material S2. </b>Computation of the finite verb morphology composite (FVMC). <br><b>Supplemental Material S3.</b> Example of a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis. <br><b>Supplemental Material S4. </b><i>F</i> values, <i>p</i> values, and effect sizes (<i>d</i>) for the group differences in total number of C-units, mean length of C-units in morphemes (MLCUm), number of different words (NDW), and number of obligatory contexts for the FVMC analysis (# of OC for FVMC) by age.<br><b>Supplemental Material S5.</b> <i>Z</i> score and confidence interval calculation table for FVMC. <br>Guo, L.-Y., Eisenberg, S., Schneider, P., & Spencer, L. (2019). Finite verb morphology composite between age 4 and age 9 for the Edmonton Narrative Norms Instrument: Reference data and psychometric properties. <i>Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 51</i>(1)<i>, </i>128-143. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_LSHSS-19-0028
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.195 | 0.014 |
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".