Vocabulary

Following the DAPPLE (Hasson, Camilleri, Jones, Smith, & Dodd, 2013) paradigm, as well as the Camilleri & Law study (2007), we aimed to choose an instrument with good psychometric qualities that has been widely used in the last years for the identification of receptive vocabulary deficits in the German-speaking countries. In the DAPPLE study, the test of choice was the BPVS, which is a standard test of receptive vocabulary based on picture selection of the correct word. In research of an equivalent with the same properties, we concluded to the PDSS. All other examined instruments either did not follow the same testing format (e.g., parental questionnaires) or did not offer norms for children as young as 4-5 years of age.

More specifically, we chose the Subtest of Receptive vocabulary (Category: nouns) of the Patholinguistic Diagnosis of Language Disorders (Patholiguistischen Diagnostik bei

Sprachentwicklungsstörungen- (PDSS); Kauschke & Siegmüller, 2002). PDSS is a battery of 23 subtests targeting phonology, semantics, and grammar in a qualitative and quantitative way. Regarding

67 the quantitative parts, there are available norms covering ages from 2 to 7 years of age (depending on the subtest there might be a slight variation to these ages). Norms are in the form of t-values and percentile ranks, as is usually the case with German instruments. It should be noted that the battery has been standardised using 600 monolingual German-speaking children.

Its main psychometric properties, focusing specifically to our participants’ age (i.e., 4), were as follows: Interrater agreement (mean): 93.2%; Reliability: .76-.81(Cronbach’s alpha); Construct validity: very good, depending on the subtest; Concurrent validity: good to very good, depending on the combination of subtest and external measure. As regards its sensitivity and specificity, it ranged from 61% to 92% and from75% to 93%, respectively, depending on the linguistic area examined.

The Subtest comprises of 20 items of increasing semantic complexity. For instance, initial items include “Stern” [star] and “Hahn- Güggel” [rooster] –acquired around 2:6-2:11-, whereas some of the final items include words, such as “Ratte” [rat], and “Pfau” [peacock] that are acquired around 4:0-4:5 (Kauschke & Siegmüller, 2002, p.31). As described in the PDSS manual (Kauschke & Siegmüller, 2002, p.37), all words were initially controlled for possible issues related to syllabicity, frequency, and age of acquisition. As these items were identical with the ones of the PDSS expressive vocabulary subtest (not used in our study), all targets were controlled for any factors that might affect naming, so that all targets were mono- or two-syllabic words, included only one morpheme, referred only to whole, concrete objects (both animate and inanimate). For each target word there were two semantic distractors, one closely related and a semantically “distant” one. According to the test authors, the selection of the distractors was based on a preliminary rating of the semantic “similarity” among different possible word combinations.

Materials

During this phase, we used the scoring form of the PDSS subtest “Nomen” (“nouns”; Table 5), as well as the popular turn-taking game “Pop-Up pirate” that was chosen as a pleasant ice-braker and to provide short breaks, whenever necessary.

68 Procedure/Task

As a warm-up activity child were presented with a popular tun-taking game (pop-the pirate). Next, children then were asked to select the correct picture for a given word (noun) out of two distractors.

The instruction read: "Here are some pictures. Let us look at them." Showing the target word, the examiner asked: "Look, who is x?"? For each correct response children were awarded one point; at the end of this phase the sum of the earned points (maximum: 20) constituted the static score. The

examiner at this stage had to put aside the cards of all non-correctly selected items to use for the next phase (DA). All responses, i.e., the whole procedure was recorded for further analysis by means of a

Table 5. Stimuli of the static test of vocabulary (Source: (Kauschke & Siegmüller, 2002)

Prüfwort Ablenker nah Ablenker weit

Uebung Fisch Frosch Krokodil

1.Hahn Henne Specht

2.Hut Mütze Krawatte

3.Schlitten Ski Roller

4.Stern Mond Wolke

5.Zwiebel Knoblauch Kürbis

6.Zebra Pferd Giraffe

7.Bank Stühl Regal

8.Krebs Käfer Regenwurm

9.Kleid Rock Unterhemd

10.Zaun Mauer Tür

11.Pilz Klee Kaktus

12.Zelt Hütte Kirche

13.Drachen Luftballon Hubschrauber

14.Schwan Gans Pinguin

15.Zopf Dutt Kapuze

16.Insel Oase Wald

17.Ratte Maus Biber

18.Schürze Kleid Jacke

19.Kreuz Quadrat Fragezeichen

20.Pfau Strauss Krähe

Statische Summe- Testwert

69 Marantz digital sound recorder (PMD620). Figure 2 illustrates an example of the form of a caseload child, who earned a static vocabulary score of 10 during the initial phase.

Figure 2. Example of scoring form of the static vocabulary test

b. Dynamic Assessment

As already mentioned, our DA was based on that described in the DAPPLE (Hasson, Camilleri, Jones, Smith, & Dodd, 2013) and Law & Camilleri (2007) studies. Putting this methodology into a more general DA context, it could be argued that it comprises a mix of different procedures with a strong element of “standardised” graduated prompting/ cueing. Cueing in this case is fully integrated in the testing process, so that there is no formal “intervention” phase. We prefer to view our process in this way, rather than employ the term “post-tests” as the different stages of our DA are not identical among each other. For reference, these stages are: Dynamic mediation, Immediate Recall, Expressive

Retention, and Receptive Retention. These are described in detail in the following section. This slight departure from the DAPPLE methodology with regards to the used terminology affects mainly the data analysis part and is further clarified below.

70 Finally, it is important to note that although we referred (see Introduction) to pre-post tests during the pilot study, in accordance with the DAPPLE example, we decided to slightly change our terminology regarding this part of our main study because it better reflected the process that was followed. This change of terminology had an impact on the type of statistical analyses that we were able to use (for instance, this was the reason that we did not use a two-way repeated measures ANOVA as has been the case with the DAPPLE study).

Materials

As per the DAPPLE study, for the mediation (Dynamic) vocabulary phase, in addition to the static test pictures, we used a paper box as a “post-box” to post pictures in, along with the laminated target words of the static test.

Figure 3. Presentation of materials of the Dynamic Vocabulary phase

Procedure

Mediation: Depending on the child's responses at the static phase, i.e., their wrong answers, the examiners needed to set aside the corresponding images (distractors). The mediation took place only if the child had identified at least six wrong and at least eight correct pictures. These “criteria” were set in line with those of the original DAPPLE study as a form of “ceiling” and “basal” scores, as well as to ensure there were sufficient known and unknown items to use as target words and distractors, respectively,

The images of the words that had been correctly identified at the static phase were presented to the children. Each unidentified image was presented with two other images that the child had been able to

71 identify in the initial phase. The mediation consisted of three stages (hierarchy of aids) based on the aforementioned (section 1.1.6.2) principles of “strategic use of relevance and mutual exclusivity”

(Hasson, Camilleri, Jones, Smith, & Dodd, 2013, p. 60).

The mediation stages were the following:

a. Contextual mediation: each child was presented with three images, two that were already identified and one unknown. The child was asked "where is the "target" word?” The child was awarded 3 points if successful.

b. Language mediation / implicit identification: If the child had chosen an incorrect card in the previous level, the examiner went on and said "No, this is not x, that was a difficult word. First let us find the easier one". As a result, the child was encouraged to identify the known words and, if this was successful, the examiner again would ask the child to identify the target image (2 points if successful).

c. Context / language mediation / explicit identification: if the child failed in the previous stages, the examiner asked the child again: "Where is x?" At this stage, the known cards were turned face down and only the unknown image was uncovered (1 point if successful).

The sum of the earned points of this phase constituted the Dynamic mediation score. In the following figure, following up from the same previous child (Figure 4) it is possible to read the six target words that were previously not identified, i.e., “Schlitten, Stern, Zwiebel, Insel, Zopf, Zelt”. In this case this child’s raw score was 16.

Figure 4. Scoring form of the Dynamic mediation phase of vocabulary

72 Expressive immediate recall

During or right after the mediation phase, the examiner asked the child to name the cards of the previous three words (regardless of the level of received mediation) and to put them in a "letterbox", like a letter. If the child failed to name the card correctly, the examiner corrected the child (repeating the correct word) while throwing the card into the box. Each correct response was awarded one point (maximum immediate recall score: 6). All target words and utterances of each child were written down in the corresponding box of the testing form. As illustrated in Figure 5, the child earned an immediate recall score of 1.

Figure 5. Scoring form of the Immediate Expressive Recall of vocabulary

Expressive retention

All cards that could not be identified by the child during the static phase were set aside, and then the child was asked to name them once again. Each correct response was awarded one point (maximum expressive retention score: 6). All target words and realisations of each child were written down in the corresponding box of the testing form. Figure 6 presents the scoring form of the already presented example. The child obtained an expressive retention score of 0 during this phase.

Figure 6. Scoring form of the Expressive Retention phase of vocabulary

73 Receptive retention

Finally, the examiner asked the child to identify the cards that s/he had initially failed to identify (in the static phase). All cards were placed in front of the child and the instruction was: "Where is [unknown word]? e.g., “Stern” (“star”), “Zopf” (“plait" ), etc.? Each correct response was awarded one point (maximum receptive retention score: 6) and noted on the corresponding form. Figure 6 presents the scoring form of a child with a receptive retention score of 1.

Figure 7. Scoring form of the Receptive Retention phase of vocabulary

Depending on the child, instructions were at times in Swiss German or in High German.