Bringing the Computer‐Based Instrument for Low Motor Language Testing to Canada: A Survey of Caregiver and Clinician Perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Accurate assessment of language comprehension is crucial to positive outcomes for children with cerebral palsy (CP) but is difficult for those with significant speech and physical impairments (SSPI). Standardized tools that typically require these children to speak, vocalize or select directly pose particular challenges. AIM: To describe Canadian caregivers' and clinicians' language comprehension assessment experiences and needs for children with CP and SSPI prior to soliciting feedback to advance the Computer-Based instrument for Low motor Language Testing (C-BiLLT-CAN), a standardized and accessible tool designed specifically for these children. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Recruiting from Canadian children's treatment centres, augmentative and alternative communication clinics, and via social media, we conducted an environmental scan of caregivers of and clinicians providing services to children with CP and SSPI. Surveys designed using the Knowledge to Action Framework solicited both quantitative and qualitative data, summarized using descriptive statistics and inductive content analysis, respectively. OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Twenty-two caregivers (21 females, 1 male; mean age = 42 years) and 39 clinicians (36 females, 3 males; mean age = 41 years) from 7 Canadian provinces completed the survey. Most caregivers had experienced language comprehension assessment but were typically only 'somewhat confident' in the results, despite considering accuracy 'very important.' Most clinicians were involved in language comprehension assessment and overwhelmingly relied on non-standardized tools despite feeling at best 'fairly confident' in their results. Qualitative comments indicated the utility of a population-specific test/testing procedures and/or associated normative data to complement non-standardized tools. Participants indicated that the C-BiLLT-CAN could be improved by expanding available response methods and supporting visual and auditory access modifications to promote customization. Anticipated benefits of the C-BiLLT-CAN included improved interaction with, participation for, and understanding of the abilities of children with CP and SSPI; and improved interventions and outcomes for these children and their families. CONCLUSIONS AND IMPLICATIONS: The C-BiLLT-CAN could fill a critical gap in services available to Canadian children with CP and SSPI. Caregivers and clinicians recognized the benefits of incorporating a reliable and valid standardized tool as part of a comprehensive language comprehension assessment battery for this population but valued additional response methods and features to support access and implementation. Integration of the additional response methods and customization options recommended by end users is expected to further increase the usefulness and feasibility of the C-BiLLT-CAN in the Canadian clinical context. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: What is already known on this subject Accurate assessment of language comprehension is crucial to positive outcomes for children with cerebral palsy (CP), but is especially difficult for those with significant speech and physical impairments (SSPI). Standardized tools that typically require these children to speak, vocalize or select directly pose particular challenges. What this paper adds to existing knowledge This environmental scan describes Canadian caregivers' and clinicians' language comprehension assessment experiences and needs for children with CP and SSPI and solicits feedback to advance the Computer-Based instrument for Low motor Language Testing (C-BiLLT-CAN), a standardized and accessible language comprehension assessment tool designed specifically for these children. What are the potential or actual clinical implications of this work? With the incorporation of an expanded breadth of response methods and customization options, the C-BiLLT-CAN could fill a critical gap in services available to Canadian children with CP and SSPI. Caregivers and clinicians recognize the benefits of incorporating a reliable and valid standardized tool along with commonly used non-standardized techniques as part of a comprehensive language comprehension assessment battery for this population.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".