Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T09:21:33.387Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Diary vs. representative checklist assessment of productive vocabulary*

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 September 2008

J. Steven Reznick  and
Beverly A. Goldfield
J. Steven Reznick*
Affiliation:
Yale University
Beverly A. Goldfield
Affiliation:
Rhode Island College
*
Psychology Department, Yale University, Box 208205, New Haven, Connecticut, 06520-8205, USA. E-mail: [email protected].
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Twenty-four infants were followed longitudinally from 1;2 to 1;10. Parents maintained diaries of the child's spoken words and at two-month intervals completed a representative checklist of words produced. There was good agreement across the two instruments and robust month-to-month correlations for both. However, the overall pattern of results suggests that the diary method is more effective during the early emergence of language and the representative checklist method is more effective late in the second year when vocabulary size becomes relatively large. Accurate longitudinal assessment of vocabulary may require a combination of the diary and checklist approaches.

Type
Notes and Discussion
Information
Journal of Child Language , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 1994 , pp. 465 - 472
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

[*]

This study was supported by a grant from the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation Network on the Transition from Infancy to Childhood. We thank T. Bradford Johns, Jane Gibbons and Cybele Raver for their help with data collection, and the children and parents who so generously gave their time and energy. The manuscript has been improved greatly by suggestions from Donna Thal, Larry Fenson, Katharine Perera and several anonymous reviewers.

References

REFERENCES

Bates, E., Bretherton, I. & Snyder, L. (1988). From first words to grammar: individual differences and dissociable mechanisms. Cambridge: C.U.P.Google Scholar
Beeghley, M., Jernberg, E. & Burrows, E. (1989). Validity of the Early Language Inventory for use with 25-month olds. Poster presented at the Society for Research in Child Development, Kansas City, Kansas.Google Scholar
Bretherton, I., McNew, S., Snyder, L. & Bates, E. (1983). Individual differences at 20 months: analytic and holistic strategies in language acquisition. Journal of Child Language 10, 293–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Dale, P. S. (1991). The validity of a parent report measure of vocabulary and syntax at 24 months. Journal of Speech & Hearing Sciences 34, 565–71.Google ScholarPubMed
Dale, P. S., Bates, E., Reznick, J. S. & Morissel, C. (1989). The validity of a parent report instrument of child language at 20 months. Journal of Child Language 16, 239–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Thal, D., Bates, E., Hartung, J. P., Pethick, S. & Reilly, J. S. (1993). User's guide and technical manual, MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories. San Diego: Singular Publishing.Google Scholar
Goldfield, B. A. & Reznick, J. S. (1990). Early lexical acquisition: rate, content and the vocabulary spurt. Journal of Child Language 17, 171–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Miller, J. (1981). Assessing language production in children. Baltimore: University Park Press.Google Scholar
Reznick, J. S. & Goldsmith, L. (1989). A multiple form word production checklist for assessing early language. Journal of Child Language 16, 91–100.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Snyder, L., Bates, E. & Bretherton, I. (1981). Content and context in early lexical development. Journal of Child Language 8, 565–82.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed