Search PubMed⌕ 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↗

Confidence intervals for the standardized effect arising in the comparison of two normal populations.

Confidence intervals for a standardized effect are derived after stabilizing the variance of the Welch t-statistic. Simulation studies demonstrate the viability of the resulting intervals for a wide range of parameter values and sample sizes as small as five. The methodology is extended to the combination of results from several studies, so as to obtain a confidence interval for a representative standardized effect for all the studies. The methods are illustrated on a recent meta-analytic study of systolic blood pressure reduction during a weight reducing regime, as well as the classical Mumford data on psychological intervention and hospital length of stay.

Analysis of Variance↗