Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7fkt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:32:47.392Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The use of the Internet in collecting CDI data – an example from Norway*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 May 2012

KRISTIAN E. KRISTOFFERSEN ,
HANNE GRAM SIMONSEN ,
DORTHE BLESES ,
SONJA WEHBERG ,
RUNE NØRGÅRD JØRGENSEN ,
ELI ANNE EIESLAND  and
LAILA YVONNE HENRIKSEN
KRISTIAN E. KRISTOFFERSEN*
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
HANNE GRAM SIMONSEN
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
DORTHE BLESES
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark
SONJA WEHBERG
Affiliation:
Odense University Hospital
RUNE NØRGÅRD JØRGENSEN
Affiliation:
University of Southern Denmark
ELI ANNE EIESLAND
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
LAILA YVONNE HENRIKSEN
Affiliation:
University of Oslo
*
Address for correspondence: Kristian E. Kristoffersen, University of Oslo – Department of Linguistics and Scandinavian Studies, P.O. Box 1102 Blindern, Oslo N-0317, Norway. e-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article presents the methodology used in a population-based study of early communicative development in Norwegian children using an adaptation of the MacArthur-Bates communicative development inventories (CDI), comprising approximately 6500 children aged between 0 ; 8 and 3 ; 0. To our knowledge, this is the first CDI study collecting data via the Internet. After a short description of the procedures used in adapting the CDI to Norwegian and the selection of participants, we discuss the advantages and potential pitfalls of using web-based forms as a method of data collection. We found that use of web-based forms was far less time-consuming, and therefore also far less expensive than the traditional paper-based forms. The risk of coding errors was virtually eliminated with this method. We conclude that in a society with high access to the Internet, this is a method well worth pursuing.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , June 2013 , pp. 567 - 585
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

[*]

We thank the CDI Advisory Board for permission to adapt the MacArthur-Bates Communicative Inventories to Norwegian. We also thank Master of linguistics Kristin Wium for drafting the first version of the Norwegian CDI, as well as PhD (linguistics) Janne von Koss Torkildsen, Lars Smith and Stephen von Tetzchner, professors of psychology at the University of Oslo, for evaluating the first draft. Furthermore, we would like to thank the parents of the participating children for having completed the CDI-reports. Finally, we thank the anonymous reviewers of the Journal of Child Language for their useful comments and suggestions. The data collection was funded by the Faculty of Humanities, University of Oslo.

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E., Bretherton, I. & Snyder, L. (1988). From first words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Berglund, E. & Eriksson, M. (2000). Communicative development in Swedish children 16–28 months old: The Swedish early communicative development inventory: Words and Sentences. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology 41(2), 133–44.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bleses, D., Vach, W., Wehberg, S., Faber, K. & Madsen, T. O. (2007). Tidlig kommunikativ udvikling. Odense: Syddansk universitetsforlag.Google Scholar
Bleses, D., Vach, W., Slott, M., Wehberg, S., Thomsen, P., Madsen, T. O. & Basbøll, H. (2008a). The Danish Communicative Developmental Inventories: Validity and main developmental trends. Journal of Child Language 35, 651–69.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bleses, D., Vach, W., Slott, M., Wehberg, S., Thomsen, P., Madsen, T. O. & Basbøll, H. (2008b). Early vocabulary development in Danish and other languages: A CDI-based comparison. Journal of Child Language 35, 619–50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caselli, M. C., Bates, E., Casadio, P., Fenson, J., Fenson, L., Sanderl, L. & Weir, J. (1995). A cross-linguistic study of early lexical development. Cognitive Development 10, 159–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Caselli, M. C., Casadio, P. & Bates, E. (1999). A comparison of the transition from first words to grammar in English and Italian. Journal of Child Language 26, 69–111.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Caselli, M. C., Monaco, L., Trasciani, M. & Vicari, S. (2008). Language in Italian children with Down syndrome and with specific language impairment. Neuropsychology 22, 27–35.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, P. S., Bates, E., Reznick, J. S. & Morisset, C. (1989). The validity of a parent report instrument of child language at twenty months. Journal of Child Language 16, 239–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, P. S. & Penfold, M. (2011). Adaptations of the MacArthur-Bates CDI into non-U.S. English languages. 2011(1114). Retrieved from www.sci.sdsu.edu/cdi/documents/AdaptationsSurvey7-5-11Web.pdf.Google Scholar
Devescovi, A., Caselli, M. C., Marchione, D., Pasqualetti, P., Reilly, J. & Bates, E. (2005). A crosslinguistic study of the relationship between grammar and lexical development. Journal of Child Language 32, 759–86.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Eurostat. (2008). Internet access and use in the EU27 in 2008. Retrieved 26 August 2010, from http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=STAT/08/169&format=HTML&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=nl.Google Scholar
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. J., Pethick, S. J., Tomasello, M., Mervis, C. B. & Stiles, J. (1994). Variability in early communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development 59(5). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Thal, D. J., Bates, E., Hartung, J. P., Pethick, S. & Reilly, J. S. (1993). The MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories: User's guide and technical manual. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group.Google Scholar
Fenson, L., Marchman, V. A., Thal, D. J., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S. & Bates, E. (2007). MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories. User's guide and technical manual. Baltimore: Brookes.Google Scholar
Law, J. & Roy, P. (2008). Parental report of infant language skills: A review of the development and application of the Communicative Development Inventories. Child and Adolescent Mental Health 13, 198–206.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Maital, S. L., Dromi, E., Sagi, A. & Bornstein, M. H. (2000). The Hebrew Communicative Development Inventory: Language specific properties and cross-linguistic generalizations. Journal of Child Language 27, 43–67.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McBride-Chang, C., Tardif, T., Cho, J.-R., Shu, H., Fletcher, P., Stokes, S. F., Wong, A. & Leung, K. (2008). What's in a word? Morphological awareness and vocabulary knowledge in three languages. Applied psycholinguistics 29, 437–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meints, K., Plunkett, K. & Harris, P. L. (1999). When does an ostrich become a bird: The role of prototypes in early word comprehension. Developmental Psychology 35, 1072–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reese, E. & Reed, S. (2000). Predictive validity of the New Zealand MacArthur communicative development inventory: Words and sentences. Journal of Child Language 27, 255–66.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Simonsen, H. G. (1990). Barns fonologi: system og variasjon hos tre norske og et samoisk barn. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oslo.Google Scholar
Statistics Norway (2011). Population Statistics. Estimated population, 1 January 2012. Retrieved from www.ssb.no/english/subjects/02/01/10/folkber_en/.Google Scholar
Tardif, T., Gelman, S. A. & Xu, F. (1999). Putting the ‘noun bias’ in context: A comparison of English and Mandarin. Child Development 70, 620–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thordardottir, E. T. & Ellis Weismer, S. (1996). Language assessment via parent report: Development of a screening instrument for Icelandic children. First Language 16, 265–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar