The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Predictive validity of the New Zealand MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory: Words and Sentences
Abstract
This study assessed the long-term predictive validity of the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories: Words and Sentences (CDI[ratio ]WS; Fenson, Dale, Reznick, Thal, Bates, Hartung, Pethick & Reilly, 1993) for children's expressive and receptive vocabulary development. Sixty-one New Zealand children (31 females) were assessed with a New Zealand version of the CDI[ratio ]WS at 1;7 and 2;1 and with the Expressive Vocabulary Test (Williams, 1997) and the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III (Dunn & Dunn, 1997) at 2;8 and 3;4. Excellent reliability and good predictive validity was obtained for the NZ CDI[ratio ]WS even over a 21-month delay. Predictive validity of the NZ CDI[ratio ]WS for the PPVT-III was higher for children of mothers with less education. We discuss the implications of these results for use of the CDI[ratio ]WS with children from a broad range of cultural and educational backgrounds.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There are also previous studies reporting a negative effect of maternal education on caregiver-reported word comprehension.
“However, there are also previous studies reporting a negative effect of maternal education on caregiver‐reported word comprehension (e.g., Feldman et al., 2000; Reese & Read, 2000).”
From The role of dyadic combinations of infants' behaviors and caregivers' verbal and multimodal responses in predicting vocabulary outcomes (2025) · cites this paper as Reese & Read, 2000
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
BAVIN, E. L., PRIOR, M., REILLY, S., BRETHERTON, L., WILLIAMS, J., EADIE, P., BARRETT, Y., & UKOUMUNNE, O. C. (2008) · Journal of Child Language · doi:10.1017/s0305000908008726 · Cited by 92
van der Klis, A., Junge, C., Adriaans, F., & Kager, R. (2025) · Infancy · doi:10.1111/infa.12626 · Cited by 5
“However, there are also previous studies reporting a negative effect of maternal education on caregiver‐reported word comprehension (e.g., Feldman et al., 2000; Reese & Read, 2000).”
Metadata
- Authors
- REESE, E., & READ, S.
- Affiliations
- University of Otago (NZ)
- ORCID
- REESE, ELAINE
- Venue
- Journal of Child Language
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2000-06
- Volume
- 27
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 255-266
- ISSN
- 0305-0009 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-7602
- OpenAlex
- W2064220631
- Cited by
- 119
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 6 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 5
- FWCI
- 1.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Child Language (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Reading and Literacy Development
- Keywords
- predictive validity, vocabulary development, expressive vocabulary, receptive vocabulary, New Zealand children, language assessment, maternal education
- MeSH terms
- Child Language, Child, Preschool, Communication, Female, Humans, Male, Predictive Value of Tests, Surveys and Questionnaires, Vocabulary
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
