1 2) * ** *** (*, **, *** ).., 2002, 7, 2, 46-63. 24-30. MCDI- K (SELSI),... MLUm, T NW, NDW, T TR TT R.. :,,, MCDI- K, SELSI. 3.. 16 9 198, 20 41 405 (F enson et al., 1993). (T hal et al., 1999), (noncommunicative) (T homblin, Shonrock & Hardy, 1989). (T hal et al., 1999). 1 BK21. 46
. (parent report ).., (Dale et al., 1989; Dale, 1991).,. Dale et al. (1989).,. (retrospective study ).,.. 18, 30., (inventory ) (checklist ) (recognition format )...., (Sheehan & Sites, 1989). (T hal et al., 1999). T hal et al. (2000). (1), (2),. (3) (word frequency ). (4). (5),. (6). (7) 47
,.. (Sigafoos & Pennell, 1995),. Dale (1991) 24 CDI: WS (MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory : Words and Sentences, F enson et al., 1993). CDI CDI EOWPVT (Expressive One Word Picture Vocabulary T est, Gardner, 1981).73, CDI NDW (Number of Different Words ).53, T T R (T ype- T oken Ratio).74. Lyytinen et al. (1996) 94, 14 18 CDI, 18 Reynell Development Language Scales (RDLS, Reynell & Gruber, 1990)., CDI RDLS, CDI (concurrent validity ) (predictive validity ). T hal et al. (2000) 12 20 19 28, IDHC: PE (fundacion MacArthur Inventario del Desarrollo de Habilidades Comunicativas, Jackson - Maldonado, Bates & T hal, 1992) NDW, MLU. 20 IDHC: PE.69, NDW.66, 28 IDHC: PE.68, NDW.54, MLU.64. T homblin, Shonrock & Hardy (1989) 23-28 57 Sequenced Inventory of Communication Development (SICD, Hedrick, Prather & T obin, 1984), MCDI (Minnesota Child Development Inventory, Ireton & T hwing, 1974). MLU., MCDI SICD.67, MLU.68. MCDI 2 (predictor ). Diamond & Squires (1993) 48
,, (task ). (SES ). (Eisert et al., 1980). Dale (1991),. Frankenburg, Coon s & Jer (1982),.,.,,. Dale (1991) 18, 30..., (Miller, Sedey & Miolo, 1995; T hal et al., 1999; Cunningham & Sloper, 1984). 1½ - 2 (1999) 4 4.. 24-30..,., 4 4,. 49
. 1. 24 30 ( ). 14, 15 29. 30 30 (Dale, 1991)., PRES (Preschool Receptive Expressive Language Scales: :, 2000),.. < - 1>. < - 1> 14 27 10 1 28 15 26 24 2 1 29 27 2 1 29 2.. MCDI- K (Pae, 1993) (SELSI:, 2002). MCDI- K (, 2000), (2000) 50
MCDI- K. MCDI- K 656, MCDI- K 159 255. 2 %, 48 %, 4 %, 28 %, 6 %,. SELSI 4 35..,. SELSI.. (, ), (2-7 ),. 120, 84, 24, 12., 2 23, 3 22, 4 20 65. (Dunn & Dunn, 1981), (, 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979), (1994), (1980).,,,., 80 %, 20 %..,. PRES. 5 1
, 1 7. 26, 1. MCDI- K (, 2000),.,.., 15-20. MCDI- K SELSI, /. SELSI 8, 8. 7..,,,. +. 80, 40 1. 20 ( ), 20 40.,.?,??., T CM - 323. 52
. MCDI- K, 1, 0. SELSI 1, 0, 1. 80,. MLUm (Mean Length of Utterance in morphemes ), T NW (T otal Number of Words ), NDW, T T R. (1997),,. (1996),,,. 2. 1, 0. 1. 3. 1. 25 % 7,,. 98 %, 93 %, 96 %. 53
. 1. ( ). M CDI- K MCDI- K.686 (p <.01), < - 2>. < - 2> MCDI- K MCDI- K (n = 29) MCDI- K 1.000.686** 1.000 **p <.01. (S ELS I) SELSI.649 (p <.01), < - 3>. < - 3> SELSI SELSI (n = 29) SELSI 1.000.649** 1.000 **p <.01 2.. M CDI- K MLU m, T DW, N D W, T T R MCDI- K MLUm, T NW, NDW, T T R 54
< - 4>. MCDI- K MLUm.594 (p <.01). MCDI- K T NW NDW.673 (p <.01). MCDI- K T T R.019 T T R. < - 4> MCDI- K MLUm, TNW, NDW, TTR MCDI- K MLUm TNW NDW TT R (n = 29) MCDI- K MLUm TNW NDW TT R **p <.01 1.000.594**.673**.673**.019 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000. MLU m, T DW, N DW, T T R SELSI < - 5>. SELSI MLUm.770 (p <.01). SELSI T NW.778 (p <.01), T NW SELSI. SELSI NDW.744 (p <.01). SELSI T T R -.023 T T R. < - 5> SELSI MLUm, TNW, NDW, TTR SELSI MLUm T NW NDW T T R (n = 29) SELSI MLUm T NW NDW T T R **p <.01 1.000.770**.778**.744** -.023 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 55
. (1). < - 6>. < - 6> (n = 15) (n = 14) MCDI- K -.626*.762** SELSI -.581*.680** MCDI- K - MLU T NW.439.549*.637**.756**.787**.752** NDW SELSI - MLU T NW.670**.637*.634**.826**.796**.746** NDW *p <.05, **p <.01.. (z = 1.148, p <.05). 56
2. 4 4. 4, 4. < - 7>. < - 7> MLUm T NW NDW 4 (n = 12) 4 (n = 17) MCDI- K SELSI MCDI- K SELSI.605*.729*.720**.250.579*.713**.683**.243.530.673*.766**.140.552.692*.652**.253 *p <.05, **p <.01 4 SELSI.729, SELSI MLUm, T NW, NDW.713,.673,.692. MCDI- K, MCDI- K SELSI. 4 MCDI- K.720, MCDI- K MLUm, T NW, NDW.683,.766,.652. SELSI, SELSI MCDI- K. MCDI- K MCDI- K. MCDI- K MCDI- K (z =.548, p >.05). SELSI SELSI. SELSI SELSI 57
(z = 2.011, p <.05)., 4 SELSI 4 SELSI. 58
..,.,. (, 1999). 2½ - 3 2 (Dale, 1991).,.. (, 1999).. (Dale, 1991)..,..,... MCDI- K.686 (p <.01). SELSI.649 (p <.01). T homblin et al. (1989) MCDI SICD.67. Dale (1991) CDI: WS CDI EOWPVT, CDI EOWPVT.73 59
.. MCDI- K MLUm, NDW, T NW.549,.673,.673 (p <.01). SELSI MLUm, NDW, T NW.770,.778,.744 (p <.01). T homblin et al. (1989) MCDI MLU.68. T hal et al. (2000) IDHC: PE, 20 IDHC: PE NDW.66, 28 NDW.54, MLU.64. T T R, T T R T NW NDW (Watkins et al., 1995)....,..., 4, SELSI MCDI- K., 4, SELSI MCDI- K.., MCDI- K, SELSI., 4 60
SELSI 4. SELSI MCDI- K. MCDI- K, SELSI.,, SELSI.,.,,. SELSI,. 30. 29, 7, 7.. (1997). 2-4. -. 2, 5-26. (2000). (PRES) :., 5(1), 77-101. (2002). (Sequenced Language Scale for Infant). :. ( ).. :. 61
(1996).. :. (1980). (1). :. (1999). 1½- 2.. (1994).. :. (1976, 1977, 1978, 1979).. :. (1999). :. -, 4, 153-166. (2000)... Cunningham, C. & Sloper, P. (1984). The relationship between maternal ratings of first word vocabulary and Reynell language scores. B ritish Journal of Educational Psychology, 54, 160-167. Dale, P., Bates, E., Reznick, S. & Morisset, C. (1989). The validity of a report instrument of child language at twenty months. Journal of Child Language, 16, 239-250. Dale, P. (1991). The validity of a parent report measure of vocabulary and syntax of 24 months. Journal of Sp eech and H earing R esearch, 34, 565-571. Diamond, E. & Squires, J. (1993). The role of parental report in the screening and assessment of young children. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 107-115. Dunn, L. & Dunn, R. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-R evised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service. Eisert, D., Spector, S., Shankaran, S., Faigenbaum, D. & Szego, E. (1980). Mothers reports of their low birth weight infants subsequent development on the Minnesota Child Development Inventory. Journal of Pediatric Psychology, 5, 353-364. Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, S., Bates, E., Thal, D., Hartung, J. & Reilly, J. (1993). Technical manual for the MacA rthur communicative development inventory. San Diego: San Diego State University. Frankenburg, W., Coons, C. & Jer, C. (1982). Screening infants and preschoolers to identify school learning problem. In E. Edgar, N. Haring, J. Jenkins & C. Pious (Eds.), Mentally handicapped children. Baltimore: University Park Press. Gardner, R. (1981). Expressive One- Word P icture Vocabulary Test-R evised. Novato, CA: Academic Therapy Publications. Hedrick, L., Prather, M. & Tobin, R. (1984). Sequences Inventory of Communicative Development. Seattle: University of Washington Press. Ireton, H. & Thwing, E. (1974). Manual for the Minnesota Child Development Inventory. Minneapolis, MN: Behavior Science Systems. Jackson- Maldonado, D., Bates, E. & Thal, D. (1992). F undacion MacA rthur: Inventario del desarrollo de habilidades comunicativas. San Diego: San Diego State University. Lyytinen, P., Poikkeus, A., Leiwo, M., Ahonen, T. & Lyytinen, H. (1996). Parents as informants of their children s vocal and early language development. Early Childhood Development and Care, 126, 15-25. 62
Miller, F., Sedey, L. & Miolo, G. (1995). Validity of parent report measures of vocabulary development for children with Down syndrome. Journal of Sp eech and H earing R esearch, 38, 1037-1044. Pae, S. (1993). Early vocabulary in Korean: Are nouns easier to learn than verbs? Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Kansas. Reynell, J. & Gruber, C. (1990). R eynell Development Language Scales-US Edition. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services. Sheehan, R. & Sites, J. (1989). Implications of P.L. 99-457 for assessment. Top ics in Early Childhood Sp ecial Education, 8, 103-115. Sigafoos, J. & Pennell, D. (1995). Parent and teacher assessment of receptive and expressive language in preschool children with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in M ental R etardation and Developmental Disabilities, 30, 329-335. Thal, D., O Hanlon, L., Clemmons, M. & Fralin, L. (1999). Validity of a parent report measure of vocabulary and syntax for preschool children with language impairment. Journal of Sp eech and H earing R esearch, 42, 482-496. Thal, D., Jackson-Maldonado, D. & Acosta, D. (2000). Validity of a parent-report measure of vocabulary and grammar for Spanish- speaking toddlers. Journal of Sp eech, Language, and H earing R esearch, 43, 1087-1100. T omblin, B., Shonrock, M. & Hardy, C. (1989). The concurrent validity of the Minnesota Child Development Inventory as a measure of young children s language development. Journal of Sp eech and H earing R esearch, 54, 101-105. Watkin, R., Kelly, D., Harbers, H. & Hollis, W. (1995). Measuring children s lexical diversity: Differentiating typical and impaired language disorders. Journal of Sp eech and H earing R esearch, 38, 1349-1355. 63
AB ST RACT Validity of P ar ent al Report Measur es of E xpr es sive Lan guage Developm ent durin g E ar ly Development al Stage Ji Y oung H an (Interdisciplinary Program of Communication Disorders, The Graduate School, Ewha Womans University) Y oung T ae K im (Dept. of Special Education & Interdisciplinary Program of Communication Disorders, Ewha Womans University) K y un g H e e K im (Korea Institute Curriculum and Evaluation) T he purpose of the present study was to investigate the validity of parental report on their children s expressive language. T wenty nine normal children and mothers of them participated in the study. Each mother was asked to mark expressive vocabulary of her child on the MCDI- K checklist and to give an swers to the questions of SELSI. T hen, spontaneous language sampling analysis and the Picture Vocabulary T est were administered to assess the children s expressive language ability. T he result s were analyzed with Pear son s simple product - moment correlation coefficient s. T he major findings from this study were: (1) Correlation coefficients betw een the parental report scores and Picture Vocabulary T est scores were relatively high (p <. 01); (2) correlation coefficients between the parental report scores and MLUm, T NW, NDW values were relatively high (p <. 01); (3) correlation coefficients between the parental report scores and T T R values were not significant ; (4) difference of correlation coefficients betw een boy s and girls was not significant ; (5) difference of MCDI- K correlation coefficient s betw een mother s who has brought up their children more than 4 day s in a w eek and mothers who has not w as not significant ; (6) difference of SELSI correlation coefficient s between mother s who has brought up their children more than 4 day s in a w eek and mothers who has not w as significant. T hese result s indicates that parental report is valid to as sess the infant s language ability. : 2002 5 30 : 2002 7 16 ( 1 ):, e- mail: educator @hanmail.net ( ):, e- mail: youngtae@.ewha.ac.kr ( ):, e- mail: khee@kioe.re.kr 64