PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 16175883

Conceptual versus monolingual scoring: when does it make a difference?

Abstract

PURPOSE: This study evaluates the extent to which bilingual children produce the same or overlapping responses on tasks assessing semantic skills in each of their languages and whether classification analysis based on monolingual or conceptual scoring can accurately classify the semantic development of typically developing (TD) bilingual children. METHOD: In Study 1, 55 TD children (ages 4;0 [years;months] to 7;11) from bilingual backgrounds named characteristic properties of familiar items. The extent to which children produced overlapping responses in each of their languages and their errors were examined. In Study 2, 40 TD children (ages 5;0 to 6;1), group matched for age and bilingual language exposure, responded to the Phase 2 version of the Bilingual English Spanish Assessment (BESA; E. D. Peña, V. Gutierrez-Clellen, A. Iglesias, B. A. Goldstein, and L. M. Bedore, in development). Conceptual and monolingual scores were compared to determine the extent to which were comparable for groups of children. RESULTS: The results of Study 1 indicated that TD children from bilingual backgrounds are more likely to produce unique than overlapping responses when they respond to test items. Children were more likely to code switch when tested in Spanish than in English, but they were more likely to produce errors in English. In Study 2, monolingual and bilingual children achieved comparable conceptual scores. For Spanish-speaking bilingual children, the conceptual score was more likely to be in the average range of the monolingual children than was their monolingual score. For testing in English, monolingual and conceptual scores were similar. CLINICAL IMPLICATIONS: Bilingual children will benefit from conceptual scoring, especially when they are tested in Spanish.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Lisa M Bedore, Elizabeth D Peña, Melissa García, Celina Cortez. 2005. Conceptual versus monolingual scoring: when does it make a difference?. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16175883/

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Molecular heterochrony and the evolution of sociality in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris).

Sibling care is a hallmark of social insects, but its evolution remains challenging to explain at the molecular level. The hypothesis that sibling care evolved from ancestral maternal care in primitively eusocial insects has been elaborated to involve heterochronic changes in gene expression. This elaboration leads to the prediction that workers in these species will show patterns of gene expression more similar to foundress queens, who express maternal care behaviour, than to established queens engaged solely in reproductive behaviour. We tested this idea in bumblebees (Bombus terrestris) using a microarray platform with approximately 4500 genes. Unlike the wasp Polistes metricus, in which support for the above prediction has been obtained, we found that patterns of brain gene expression in foundress and queen bumblebees were more similar to each other than to workers. Comparisons of differentially expressed genes derived from this study and gene lists from microarray studies in Polistes and the honeybee Apis mellifera yielded a shared set of genes involved in the regulation of related social behaviours across independent eusocial lineages. Together, these results suggest that multiple independent evolutions of eusociality in the insects might have involved different evolutionary routes, but nevertheless involved some similarities at the molecular level.

Analysis of Variance↗

An evaluation of bivariate random-effects meta-analysis for the joint synthesis of two correlated outcomes.

Often multiple outcomes are of interest in each study identified by a systematic review, and in this situation a separate univariate meta-analysis is usually applied to synthesize the evidence for each outcome independently; an alternative approach is a single multivariate meta-analysis model that utilizes any correlation between outcomes and obtains all the pooled estimates jointly. Surprisingly, multivariate meta-analysis is rarely considered in practice, so in this paper we illustrate the benefits and limitations of the approach to provide helpful insight for practitioners. We compare a bivariate random-effects meta-analysis (BRMA) to two independent univariate random-effects meta-analyses (URMA), and show how and why a BRMA is able to 'borrow strength' across outcomes. Then, on application to two examples in healthcare, we show: (i) given complete data for both outcomes in each study, BRMA is likely to produce individual pooled estimates with very similar standard errors to those from URMA; (ii) given some studies where one of the outcomes is missing at random, the 'borrowing of strength' is likely to allow BRMA to produce individual pooled estimates with noticeably smaller standard errors than those from URMA; (iii) for either complete data or missing data, BRMA will produce a more appropriate standard error of the pooled difference between outcomes as it incorporates their correlation, which is not possible using URMA; and (iv) despite its advantages, BRMA may often not be possible due to the difficulty in obtaining the within-study correlations required to fit the model. Bivariate meta-regression and further research priorities are also discussed.

Analysis of Variance↗