PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja]On: 24 March 2011Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 935311610]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

European Early Childhood Education Research JournalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t776628938

Assessing toddler language competence: agreement of parents' andpreschool teachers' assessmentsLjubica Marjanovič-Umeka; Urška Fekonjaa; Anja Podleseka; Simona Kranjcb

a Department of Psychology, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia b Department of SloveneStudies, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia

Online publication date: 23 March 2011

To cite this Article Marjanovič-Umek, Ljubica , Fekonja, Urška , Podlesek, Anja and Kranjc, Simona(2011) 'Assessingtoddler language competence: agreement of parents' and preschool teachers' assessments', European Early ChildhoodEducation Research Journal, 19: 1, 21 — 43To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2011.548957URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1350293X.2011.548957

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

European Early Childhood Education Research JournalVol. 19, No. 1, March 2011, 21–43

ISSN 1350-293X print/ISSN 1752-1807 online© 2011 EECERADOI: 10.1080/1350293X.2011.548957http://www.informaworld.com

Assessing toddler language competence: agreement of parents’ and preschool teachers’ assessments

Ljubica Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umeka, Ur[scaron] ka Fekonja*a, Anja Podleseka and Simona Kranjcb

aDepartment of Psychology, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia; bDepartment of Slovene Studies, University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, SloveniaTaylor and FrancisRECR_A_548957.sgm10.1080/1350293X.2011.548957European Early Childhood Education Research Journal1350-293X (print)/1752-1807 (online)Original Article2011EECERA1910000002011UrskaFekonjaurska.fekonja@ff.uni-lj.si

ABSTRACT: According to the findings of several studies, parents’ assessments oftheir toddler’s language are valid and reliable evaluations of children’s languagecompetence, especially at early development stages. This study examined whetherpreschool teachers, who spend a relatively great deal of time with toddlers invarious preschool activities and engage in diverse social interactions with them,can also validly assess their language competence. The purpose of this study wasto examine the degree of agreement between parents’ and preschool teachers’assessments of toddler language competence. In addition, the study sought toestablish whether toddlers’ gender and parental education have any significanteffect on parents’ and preschool teachers’ assessments of toddler languagecompetence. The sample included 140 toddlers aged 16- to 30-months-old that hadattended preschool for at least one year. The parents and preschool teachersassessed toddler language competence independently using the CommunicativeDevelopment Inventory for Toddlers 16 to 30 Months Old (Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umeket al. 2008b). The findings showed a low to moderately high correlation betweenparents’ and preschool teachers’ assessments of various areas of toddlers’language (e.g. vocabulary, mean length of utterance, and sentence complexity).Preschool teachers assessed toddler language competence lower in all areas thanparents did. The results also showed that parental education and toddlers’ genderhad a significant and high impact on parents’ assessments of their toddlers’language competence. The results obtained were interpreted from the perspectiveof the opportunity to include parents and preschool teachers that accompanytoddlers in various social contexts in assessments of toddlers language, and fromthe perspective of parents’ and preschool teachers’ implicit theories on languagedevelopment, also in connection with toddlers’ gender and parental education.

RÉSUMÉ: Selon les conclusions de plusieurs études, les évaluations du langagedes tout-petits par leurs parents sont des évaluations valides et fiables, enparticulier pour les stades précoces du développement. Cette étude a examiné si lesenseignants du préscolaire, qui passent un temps relativement important dansdiverses activités avec les tout-petits et qui s’engagent dans diverses interactionssociales avec eux, peuvent évaluer aussi valablement leurs compétenceslinguistiques. Le but était d’examiner le degré d’accord entre les parents et lesenseignants du préscolaire quant à cette évaluation. En outre, l’étude a cherché àétablir si le genre du tout-petit et le niveau de formation des parents ont un effetsignificatif sur les évaluations effectuées par les parents et les enseignants.L’échantillon comprenait 140 jeunes enfants de 16 à 30 mois qui avaient fréquentéle préscolaire pendant au moins 1 an. Les parents et les enseignants ont évalué leurscompétences linguistiques de façon indépendante, en utilisant le CommunicativeDevelopment Inventory for Toddlers 16 to 30 Months Old (Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek et al.

*Corresponding author. Email: urska.fekonja@ff.uni-lj.si

c s

c

c

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

22 L. Marjanovic-Umek et al.

2008b). Les résultats ont montré une corrélation faible à modérée entre les parentset les enseignants quant à l’évaluation des différents domaines du langage (parexemple, le vocabulaire, la longueur moyenne de l’énoncé et la complexité desphrases). Les enseignants font une évaluation inférieure des compétenceslangagières de l’enfant dans tous les domaines par rapport aux parents. Lesrésultats montrent également que le genre du jeune enfant et le niveau de formationdes parents ont un impact significatif et élevé dans les évaluations effectuées parles parents. De plus, au niveau des evaluations faites par les enseignants, le niveaude formation des parents a également eu un impact significatif, tandis que l’impactdu genre n’est pas significatif. Les résultats obtenus ont été interprétés en vued’inclure, dans les évaluations du langage des tout-petits, les parents et lesenseignants du préscolaire qui les accompagnent dans divers contextes sociaux, etd’intégrer leurs théories implicites sur le développement du langage, ainsi que laquestion du genre des tout-petits et du niveau de formation des parents.

ZUSAMMENFASSUNG: Ergebnisse verschiedener Studien weisen darauf hindass die Eltern die Sprachkompetenz ihrer Kleinkinder valide und verlässlicheinschätzen können; insbesondere in frühen Entwicklungsphasen. Die vorliegendeStudie untersucht die Verlässlichkeit der Einschätzung durch VorschullehrerInnen,die vergleichsweise viel Zeit mit Kleinkindern in verschieden Aktivitätenverbringen. Zweck der Studie war, den Grad der Übereistimmung zwischen Elternund VorschullehrerInnen in ihrer Einschätzung der Sprachkompetenz zuuntersuchen. Zusätzlich dazu versuchte die Studie herauszustellen, ob dasGeschlecht und elterliche Erziehungspraktiken signifikante Auswirkungen auf diejeweiligen Einschätzungen der Sprachkompetenz haben. Das Sample umfasste 140Kleinkinder im Alter von 16 bis 30 Monaten die für mindestens ein Jahr eineVorschule besucht hatten. Unter Zuhilfenahme des Communicative DevelopmentInventory for Toddlers 16 to 30 Months Old (Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek et al. 2008b)schätzten Eltern und LehrerInnen die Sprachkompetenz unabhängig voneinanderein. Es zeigen sich niedrige bis mittlere Korrelationen zwischen der Einschätzungder Eltern und LehrerInnen in verschiedenen Aspekten (z.B. Vokabular, mittlereLänge der Äußerungen, Satzkomplexität). VorschullehrerInnen schätzten dieSprachkompetenz der Kinder in allen Bereichen niedriger ein als Eltern. DieErgebnisse zeigen auch, dass sowohl das Bildungsniveau der Eltern als auch dasGeschlecht der Kinder die Einschätzung der Sprachkompetenz durch die Elternsignifikant beeinflussten. Eine Perspektive für Interpretation der Resultate war dieGelegenheit, Eltern und VorschullehrerInnen, die Kleinkinder in verschiedenensozialen Kontexten begleiten, in die Einschätzung der Sprachkompetenzeinzubeziehen. Die impliziten Theorien der Beteiligten zu Sprachentwicklung,beeinflusst durch Bildung der Eltern und Geschlecht des Kindes bot eine zweitePerspektive zur Interpretation der Ergebnisse.

RESUMEN: De acuerdo a varios estudios las afirmaciones de los padres acercadel lenguaje de sus niños pequeños constituyen evaluaciones validas y confiablesde la capacidad idiomática de los niños. Este estudio examina si los maestros preescolares, que pasan una gran cantidad de tiempo con niños pequeños en diferentesactividades pre escolares y envueltos en variadas formas de interacción social conellos, pueden también evaluar válidamente la capacidad idiomática de ellos. Elobjetivo del estudio es examinar el grado de concordancia entre las evaluacionesde las capacidades idiomáticas de los niños hechas por los padres y por losmaestros pre escolares. Además el estudio desea establecer si el sexo de los niñosy el nivel educacional de los padres tienen algún efecto significativo sobre laevaluación de la capacidad idiomática de los pequeños. Los padres y los maestrospre escolares evaluaron independientemente la capacidad idiomática de los niñosusando el Communicative Development Inventory for Toddlers 16 to 30 MonthsOld (Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek et al. 2008b). Los resultados muestran una correlaciónbaja a moderada entre las evaluaciones de los padres y de los maestros en variasáreas del idioma de los niños (por ejemplo vocabulario, largo y complejidad de las

c

c

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 23

frases). Los maestros pre escolares evaluaron la capacidad idiomática de los niñosen forma más baja que los padres, en todas las áreas. Los resultados indicanademás que la educación de los padres y el sexo de los niños tienen un impactoalto y significativo sobre la evaluación de la capacidad idiomática de los niños quehacen los padres. Los resultados obtenidos son interpretados desde la perspectivade la necesidad de incluir padres y maestros en la evaluación del lenguaje de losniños y desde la perspectiva de las teorías sobre desarrollo idiomático implícitasen la evaluación de padres y maestros, además de la conexión con el sexo de losniños y la educación de los padres.

Keywords: parents’ assessments of toddler language; preschool teachers’assessments of toddler language; toddlers’ gender; parental education; implicittheories

Introduction

Assessing child language competence

Toddler or child language competence can be assessed using various approaches: byrecording free speech in natural situations, directly assessing language in test situations(using various standardised language scales), and using questionnaires or checklists,in which adults that spend a great deal of time with toddlers during various activitiesconvey information on their language competence. This last approach involves indirectcollection of data on toddler language competence (Pellegrini and Galda 1998). Byusing the approaches listed above, valid data on toddler or child language competencecan generally be obtained, but each approach also has its weaknesses and limitations(Bornstein and Haynes 1998). In assessing toddler language in a structured test situa-tion, which includes valid and reliable language scales in individual areas or generallanguage competence, toddlers’ performance may be greatly influenced by their rela-tively short attention span and may not realistically reflect their language competence(Feldman et al. 2005; Pellegrini and Galda 1998). Especially with infants and toddlers,who are typically distracted very easily and have a short attention span, it is impossibleto use lengthier and more structured language scales, which therefore reduces the reli-ability and validity of assessments (Bates and Carnevale 1993; Feldman et al. 2005;Rescorla and Alley 2001). In test situations, toddlers are aware that the test adminis-trator is assessing their language, which may result in some toddlers speaking less thanin natural situations (Pellegrini and Galda 1998). Some authors mitigate the weak-nesses described by combining the use of standardised tests of language developmentwith recording toddler speech in various social contexts and various everyday situa-tions (e.g. while playing or during routine activities) (see, for example Bornstein andHaynes 1998; Fekonja, Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek, and Kranjc 2005).

However, recording child speech in natural situations also has its weaknessesbecause it is extremely demanding in terms of the time required (in order to obtain arepresentative sample of ‘recorded’ speech with regard to various time patterns andcontexts) as well as general implementation and logistics (e.g. trained observers andcosts; Pellegrini and Galda 1998). In making indirect assessments, in which parentsand other ‘relevant’ persons use questionnaires or checklists in order to assess toddlerlanguage, researchers (Dale et al. 1989; Pellegrini and Galda 1998) primarily drawattention to the following weaknesses: socially desired answers; problems in develop-ing checklists for older toddlers and preschool children, who already use an extensivevocabulary and have diverse language competence; the validity of selected words thattoddlers understand or use without using a previously developed child vocabulary

c

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

24 L. Marjanovic-Umek et al.

corpus as a basis; and the rater’s ability to remember words and sentences that thetoddler used in the past and in various contexts.

Due to these advantages and disadvantages of individual approaches to obtainingassessments of toddler language competence that are as comprehensive as possible, itis advisable to use several different approaches and to supplement and link the datacollected.

Parents as raters of child language competence

Parents enter into verbal interactions with their toddlers on a daily basis; they usuallydo this in a wide variety of natural situations, which is why their assessment of toddlerlanguage competence is important (Dale 1991; Feldman et al. 2005; Rescorla andAlley 2001). Researchers observe that parents assess toddlers’ language expressionmore accurately and also more validly than their language comprehension (Feldmanet al. 2000; Thal and Jackson-Maldonado 2000; Westerlund and Sundelin 2000).Including parents as raters of toddler language competence is important especially atearly development stages, when infant or toddler speech is largely limited to the socialand physical context of their family environment and when they use individuallanguage forms unpredictably and inconsistently (Dale et al. 1989).

A frequently used means of recording toddler speech, especially in the past, waslanguage diaries. These can be very accurate and informative, but they can also beunsystematic and retrospective, and may include many objective and subjective datathat reflect specific properties of the toddlers’ parents (e.g. education level, achieve-ment orientation, extroversion) (Bornstein and Haynes 1998). With the rapid growthof toddlers’ vocabulary, keeping a diary of words and utterances becomes an increas-ingly demanding task, which parents often gradually abandon due to lack of time andlimited memory. Researchers have tried to eliminate certain weaknesses of keepingdiaries, which demand that parents recall the words that children understand or speakafter a certain period of time, by developing structured questionnaires and checkliststhat only ask whether the parents recognise these words. These structured question-naires and checklists – for example, The MacArthur-Bates Communicative Develop-ment Inventories: Words and Gestures (CDI/Words and Gestures) and TheMacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories: Words and Sentences(CDI/Words and Sentences) – enable parents to record words and utterances faster andmore easily (Fenson et al. 2004).

Parents’ assessments of toddler language competence (using standardised check-lists) are valid; this has been indicated by the findings of surveys in which researchers(Feldman et al. 2000, 2003; Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek et al. 2008a) established the following:toddlers’ language competence increases with age; there are significant positive corre-lations between parents’ assessments of toddler language competence and toddlers’performance on standardised language scales (Dale et al. 1989; Feldman et al. 2005;Fenson et al. 1994; Rescorla and Alley 2001); and parents’ assessments are goodpredictors of children’s future language development. A group of American research-ers (Tomblin, Shonrock, and Hardy 1989) established that parents’ assessments of thelanguage expression of two-year-old toddlers obtained using the Minnesota ChildDevelopment Inventory (MCDI) are a good predictor of the mean length of utterancethat toddlers used in free speech. In a 1998 study that included 20-month-old toddlersin North America, Bates, Bretherton, and Snyder (1988) used a parent questionnairewith a list of 404 words to assess toddler language competence. They established a

c

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 25

high positive correlation (r = 0.83) between parents’ assessments of toddler vocabu-lary and the researchers’ assessments based on recordings of toddlers’ free speech inthe family environment. Parents’ assessment of toddler vocabulary also predictedtoddlers’ results on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (r = 0.51) and the averagelength of children’s utterances (r = 0.83) at 28 months. The greatest differencesbetween parents’ and researchers’ assessments based on recordings of toddlers’ freespeech were in the number of functional words used by toddlers. Bates et al. (1988)believe that parents’ assessments are largely based on all of the words in toddlers’vocabulary, whereas researchers’ assessments are based on the words that childrenmost frequently use in speech. The findings of many studies (Dale 1991; O’Hanlonand Thal 1991; Ring and Fenson 2000) have proven that the assessments of infant ortoddler language that parents provided using the MacArthur-Bates CommunicativeDevelopment Inventories (Fenson et al. 2004) are a valid measure of child languagecompetence; they had a significant positive correlation with toddlers’ performance onstandardised language scales and with assessments of their language competence,obtained in free-speech analysis. In 1989, Rescorla developed the Language Develop-ment Survey (LDS), which parents use to assess the language competence of their chil-dren and serves as a screening tool for establishing developmental problems intoddlerhood. The LDS includes a checklist of 310 words, which can be used to assesstoddlers’ vocabulary. There is a positive moderate to high correlation betweenparents’ assessments of their toddlers’ vocabulary and toddlers’ performance on somestandardised vocabulary tests and developmental scales (e.g. The Bayley MentalScale: r = 0.56; The Reynell Language Comprehension Subscale: r = 0.78; TheReynell Language Expression Subscale: r = 0.71; Rescorla and Alley 2001). The find-ings of other studies have also confirmed the validity of parents’ assessments oftoddler language competence: in their 1994 study, Reznick and Goldfield establisheda positive correlation between assessments of the size of vocabulary used by toddlers14- to 22-months-old obtained through parents’ diary records and parents’ checklistassessments; the findings of a 1993 study by Bates and Carnevale show a high corre-lation between parents’ checklist assessments of their toddler’s pronunciation of indi-vidual words and lab observation and recording of the size of the children’svocabulary (r = 0.60 to 0.80). Slovenian researchers established a significant positivecorrelation between parents’ assessments of language, used by toddlers aged 24- and30-months-old on the Communicative Development Inventory for Toddlers 16 to 30Months Old: Words and Sentences (Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek et al. 2008b) and toddlers’performance on the Scales of General Language Development– LSGR-LJ (Marjan-ovi[ccaron] -Umek et al. 2008) (r = 0.55 for 2-year-olds and 0.58 for 21/2-year-olds). In 2008,Fekonja and Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek also included preschool teachers, who spend a greatdeal of time with children and hear their speech during various preschool activities, intheir longitudinal study to assess the language competence of children 3–4 years old.Mothers and preschool teachers assessed children’s language competence twice – firstwhen they were 3-years-old and one year later, when they were 4-years-old – usingthe Children’s Language Competence Questionnaire for Parents and PreschoolTeachers (Fekonja 2004), which includes ten groups of items. These groups describevarious aspects of children’s speech, such as the use of multiword, interrogative, andnegative utterances, the use of the singular, dual, and plural, verb conjugation, andvocabulary. The researchers established that mothers’ and preschool teachers’assessments were valid measures of children’s language competence, but theirstability across time (a one-year interval) was low. Mothers’ and preschool teachers’

c

cc

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

26 L. Marjanovic-Umek et al.

assessments could explain only a small share of variability in children’s performanceon the storytelling and general language-development tests.

Some factors affecting the assessments of child’s language

Several researchers have focused on the factors connected with parents’ assessmentsof child language competence. Research findings (Apostolos and Napoleon 2001; Beeet al. 1982; Bornstein and Haynes 1998; Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek et al. 2008a) demonstratethat toddlers and children with a higher level of maternal education are verbally morecompetent in various areas (language comprehension, vocabulary, communicationskills) than their peers with a lower level of maternal education. As established by vari-ous researchers (Browne 1996; Butler, McMahon, and Ungerer 2003; Hoff 2003;Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek, Podlesek, and Fekonja 2005; Sénéchal et al. 1998), parental educa-tion is also significantly correlated with the quality of the family environment, whichis reflected in the frequency of stimulating children’s development, the characteristicsof verbal interactions between parents and children, parental responses to children’sspeech, parental beliefs about the importance of stimulating language development, thenumber of children’s books and toys available to children. The findings of individualstudies show that, in assessing their toddlers’ language, parents with a high level ofeducation usually gave higher scores to their children than parents with a low level ofeducation (Rescorla and Alley 2001). Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek et al. (2008a) established thattoddlers, aged 16 to 30 months, whose parents had higher levels of education scoredhigher on several scales, included in the Inventory of Communicative Competence forChildren Aged 16 to 30 Months: Words and Sentences. Their findings suggested thatparents with higher educational level assessed that their toddlers have a larger vocab-ulary, more frequently speak about past events, events that will happen, and objects andpersons not present, and that they form longer and more complex utterances thanparents with a lower level of education. In turn, the findings of some other studies showthat, in assessing their toddlers’ language, parents with a lower level of education givetheir children higher scores, which suggests that they overestimate their toddlers’language competence in some language areas (Feldman et al. 2000, 2003; Reese andRead 2000). Bornstein and Haynes (1998) reported that 20-month-old toddlers’ scoreson the standardised Reynell Developmental Language Scale – Second Revision (RDLS;Reynell & Huntley 1985) positively, albeit weakly, correlated with maternal education.However, the authors emphasised that the level of maternal education did not signifi-cantly correlate with toddlers’ language competence when the researchers evaluatedtoddlers’ spontaneous speech while playing with their mothers and when mothers eval-uated the language competence of their toddlers. Fenson et al. (1994) also analysed thecorrelation between the socioeconomic status (SES) of the child’s family, which refersto parental education and profession, and language development in infants and toddlers.The authors reported a significant, albeit weak, negative correlation between familySES and word comprehension among infants (parents assessed the comprehension ofwords using the CDI/Words and Gestures checklist for infants aged 8 to 16 months).The authors argued that lower-SES parents probably overestimated their infants’ wordcomprehension and subsequently gave them higher scores than parents with a higherSES. Among toddlers, aged 16 to 30 months, the results were different; significant andpositive, albeit weak, correlations were determined between the SES and the evalua-tions given by parents on the CDI/Words and Sentences scale. Toddlers from high-SESfamilies received higher scores than their peers from lower-SES families.

c

c

c

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 27

Other findings connected with children’s gender (Feldman et al. 2005; Marjanovi[ccaron]

et al. 2008a) show that on average parents give higher scores to girls than boys whenassessing children’s language. Fenson et al. (1994) report that 16- to 30-month-oldgirls were assessed by their parents, using the CDI: Words and Sentences inventory,as linguistically more competent compared to boys of the same age. Compared to theinsignificant effect of gender on toddlers’ scores within the individual 15 age groups,girls scored better than boys on the Vocabulary List, Sentence Complexity and Meanlength of utterances when the scores were assessed for the entire age period. Research-ers (Eriksson 2006; Kova[ccaron] evi[cacute] , Kraljevi[cacute] , and Cepanec, 2006) have used the CDI/Words and Sentences checklist in various cultural and geographical environments.Their findings demonstrate that differences between boys and girls are significantfrom around age two onwards. Using a sample of 16- to 30-month-old Croatiantoddlers, Kova[ccaron] evi[cacute] et al. (2006) discovered that 25- to 30-month-old girls use morewords, form longer and grammatically more complex utterances, and inflect wordscorrectly more often than boys of the same age. Similarly, using a sample of Estoniantoddlers, Tulviste (2006) determined that 22- to 30-month-old girls use more wordsthan their male counterparts. Using a Swedish adaptation of the CDI/Words andSentences on a sample of 16- to 28-month-old Swedish toddlers, Eriksson (2006)discovered a significant effect of age and gender on the size of their vocabulary andthe mean length of utterance, whereas the effect of interaction between gender and agewas insignificant. In their longitudinal study of toddlers’ spontaneous speech duringinteraction with their mothers, Huttenlocher et al. (1991) established that until the ageof 20 months vocabulary develops faster among girls than among boys, whereas lateron, between 20 and 24 months, the differences are smaller and insignificant. SimilarlyRoulstone et al. (2002) compared individual language areas of 25-month-old boys andgirls, assessed by parents using a short questionnaire and concluded that girls approx-imately 2-years-old formed considerably more three- or four-word utterances thanboys; two-year-old boys were twice as likely to form single-word utterances.

Another factor, which could also affect the assessments of toddlers’ languagegiven by parents, are their implicit theories and beliefs about the importance ofsupporting and encouraging toddlers’ language development at various stages ofdevelopment. Implicit theories are individual notions or mental constructs that developin an individual’s mental system and represent an aggregate of the individual’spremises, values, views, and ideals connected with a certain area or phenomenon(Polak 1996). Implicit theories also include a behavioural component (Pajares 1992),thus influencing parents’ behaviour in various situations and at the same time providea social context for the child’s development (Goodnow and Collins 1996; Harknessand Super 1996). Parents’ beliefs (which include emotional and cognitive compo-nents) about the manner of children’s socialisation (Siegel and Kim 1996) originatewithin a wider cultural context and influence parents’ behaviour towards their children(selecting toys, engaging in children’s play, encouraging language competence, andtaking part in movement activities based on the child’s gender; Goldstein 1995; Ruble1988). Research findings show that mothers that believe play has a positive impact onchildren’s cognitive development more often participate in their children’s play thanmothers that believe play is merely a form of having fun (Farver and Wimbarti 1995).Many studies (DeBaryshe, Binder, and Buell 2000; Weigel, Martin, and Bennett 2006)explored parents’ beliefs about the importance of early literacy development and thechoice of effective approaches to emergent literacy in connection with parental educa-tion (e.g. parents with a lower education believed that direct learning of writing and

c

c c c

c c

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

28 L. Marjanovic-Umek et al.

reading skills is more effective than indirect learning through language encourage-ment, reading together, creating a supportive environment with a great deal of printedmaterial and many books) and parents’ beliefs about the importance of reading andwriting (e.g. a contrast between parents that believe they can ‘accelerate’ their chil-dren’s development and more conventional parents that believe school is responsiblefor teaching children how to read and write).

The purpose of this study was to explore the extent to which parents’ andpreschool teachers’ assessments of toddler language competence overlap. In addition,the goal was to establish whether toddlers’ gender and parental education were factorsthat have a significant impact on parents’ and preschool teachers’ assessments.

Method

Participants

The sample included 140 Slovenian toddlers (50.7% girls and 49.3% boys) 16- to30-months-old (M = 23.47; SD = 4.31) and their parents. All of the toddlers attendedpreschool and came from families that used Slovenian as their native language. Theirparents had completed various levels of formal education (M = 13.75; SD = 2.39). Thestatistical analysis took into account the education of the parent that provided theassessment of toddler language competence (this was the father for only two children,whereas for all of the others the mother provided the assessment). The toddlers’language was also assessed by 60 preschool teachers from five preschools in variousSlovenian regions. The preschool teachers had completed various levels of formaleducation (60.7% of preschool teachers had a secondary school diploma, 10.7% hada junior college degree, and 28.6% had an undergraduate degree), but the majority(79.3%) had more than ten-years of work experience. The majority of toddlers(86.4%) had been in the class of the teacher that assessed their language competencefor one year.

Materials

Toddler language competence was assessed using the Inventory of CommunicativeCompetence for Children Aged 16 to 30 Months: Words and Sentences (ICC/Wordsand Sentences; Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek et al. 2008b), which is a Slovenian adaptation of aninternationally recognised checklist for assessing toddler language – that is, theMacArthur Communicative Development Inventories: Words and Sentences (CDI/Words and Sentences; Fenson et al. 2004). The Slovenian adaptation preserved all ofthe scales included in the original and the same evaluation method. However, individ-ual tasks that are not transferable into Slovenian at the translation level were changedand new tasks were added that refer to the features of Slovenian (e.g. dual, plural, andpast-tense formation, and incorrect generalisation of grammatical rules); in addition,some words were replaced because they are not typical of the Slovenian cultural envi-ronment and toddlers do not have the opportunity to hear them often. The first part ofthe checklist, entitled Part I: Words Used by Toddlers, consists of two scales: theVocabulary and Speaks of Past and Future Activities and Absent Things or Persons .The Vocabulary contains 680 words divided into 22 groups (e.g. food, interjections,animals, and interrogatives). Parents (or any other raters) that use the checklist to assesstheir toddlers’ language competence mark the words their toddlers use. The maximumscore equals the number of words – that is, 680. The Speaks of Past and Future Activ-

cDownloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 29

ities and Absent Things or Persons scale refers to toddlers’ narration of past events,events that will happen in the future, and objects and persons not present. Parents markhow often (i.e. not yet, occasionally, or never) toddlers talk about these things. Themaximum score is 5. The second part of the checklist, entitled Part II: Sentences andGrammar, includes the following scales: Word Form and Meaning, Overgeneralisa-tion of Syntax Rules, Mean Length of Utterance, and Sentence Complexity. The WordForm and Meaning scale is used to assess toddlers’ ability to form the plural, the dual,possessive pronouns, perfective and imperfective verbs, and past-tense verb forms.Parents mark how often (i.e. not yet, occasionally, or often) toddlers use the grammat-ical rules described. The maximum score on this scale is 4. The Overgeneralisation ofSyntax Rules scale, which includes two subscales (Correct Use of Declension andConjugation Rules and Generalisation of Declension and Conjugation Rules), differsconsiderably from the scale used in the original checklist: it contains 39 pairs of wordswith correct or incorrect endings in noun declensions and verb conjugations. Theparents mark whether the toddlers use the word with the correct or incorrect ending,or do not use either ending. The highest possible score on the individual scale is 39.Parents also mark whether or not toddlers use any of the forms given (the highest possi-ble score on the Non-Use of Declension and Conjugation Rules subscale is 39). TheMean Length of Utterance (MLU) scale is used to assess toddlers’ ability to form multi-word utterances. Parents write down the three longest sentences spoken by theirtoddler. The score on this scale is calculated by dividing the sum of all the words inall three utterances by three. The Sentence Complexity scale contains 37 pairs of utter-ances, of which one of the utterances in each pair is grammatically less complex thanthe other. Parents mark the utterance that is typical of their toddler’s speech. The high-est possible score is 37. The ICC/Words and Sentences is a valid and reliable tool (theα reliability coefficient on the Vocabulary is 0.95, calculated on a sample of 953toddlers aged 16–30 months) for assessing language used by toddlers 16–30 monthsold (Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek, Kranjc, and Fekonja 2006).

A Demographic Questionnaire is added to the ICC/Words and Sentences, in whichthe parents enter their profession, the years of formal education they have completed,and information on any exposure the toddler may have had to another language.

Procedure

The parents of all the children gave their written consent allowing their toddlers toparticipate in the study. The ICC/Words and Sentences inventories were sent to thetoddlers’ preschool teachers, who then forwarded them to their parents. At home, theparent that spends more time with the toddler and thus knows the toddler’s languagebetter, filled out the ICC/Words and Sentences inventory and returned it to thepreschool teacher in a sealed envelope. In the next step, the toddlers’ preschool teach-ers also used the ICC/Words and Sentences to assess the toddler’s speech. Eachpreschool teacher assessed a maximum of five randomly selected toddlers from theirgroup that had also been assessed by their parents. Toddlers 16- to 30-months-oldwere distributed across various groups, and in the end the following profile wasobtained: 12.8% of preschool teachers assessed one toddler, 17% assessed twotoddlers, 17% assessed three, 14.2% assessed four, and 39% assessed five toddlers.

Because the number of toddlers assessed by the preschool teachers varied (from 1to 5), the preschool teachers’ assessments were suitably weighed in order to avoid theeffect of the same rater’s error. To this end, the intra-class correlation was first

c

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

30 L. Marjanovic-Umek et al.

calculated. Controlling for the toddlers’ age, this correlation showed that 40% of vari-ability in toddlers’ vocabulary (i.e. scores on the Vocabulary) can be ascribed to differ-ences in preschool teachers’ assessments. The effective number was then calculatedon the basis of the intra-class correlation. The weights of preschool teachers’ answerswere inversely proportional to the number of children assessed by the preschool teach-ers, and their sum equalled the effective number. All of the results presented belowwere calculated based on the weighted preschool teachers’ assessments.

Because the values on the Overgeneralisation of Syntax rules scale are interdepen-dent, the scores on three subscales were subjected to principal component analysis andthe component score was calculated: an Overgeneralisation of Syntax Rules score, bymeans of a regression equation using weighting of the Correct Word Endings score, aGeneralisations score and a Neither of These score (for parents the weights were 0.88,0.73, and −1.00, respectively, and for preschool teachers they were 0.82, 0.65, and −0.93, respectively).

Results

Agreement of parent and preschool teacher assessments of toddler language

The degree of agreement between parents’ (mothers or fathers) and preschool teach-ers’ assessments of toddler language competence was calculated. In doing this, theeffect of age was controlled because toddler language competence is connected withchronological age.

Controlling for toddlers’ age, the partial correlation coefficients obtained showeda significant correlation between parents’ and preschool teachers’ assessments in allof the toddler language areas assessed (see Table 1). Correlation coefficients werepositive and were low to moderately high.

This was followed by an analysis of the differences in toddlers’ vocabulary asassessed by their parents and preschool teachers, taking into account individual wordgroups included on the Vocabulary scale.

Preschool teachers identified fewer words in toddlers’ vocabulary in all 22 wordgroups included on the Vocabulary scale (see Figure 1). In addition, preschool teachersalso gave lower scores to toddlers’ vocabulary (see Figure 2) in all age groups, exceptfor those aged 30-months-old. Here it must be highlighted that the toddler sample sizeswere small in some age groups. Differences between parents’ and preschool teachers’assessments across all ages were not statistically significant in any word group,

Table 1. Partial correlation between parents’ and preschool teachers’ assessments on individualscales.

Scale r

Vocabulary 0.54**Speaks of Past and Future Activities and Absent

Things or Persons0.36**

Word Form and Meaning 0.39**Overgeneralisation of Syntax Rules 0.43**Mean Length of Utterance 0.55**Sentence Complexity 0.43**

Note. *p < .05; **p < .01.

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 31

whereas the largest differences were in the group denoting games and everyday activ-ities. A more detailed analysis included 5% of the words on the Vocabulary scale thatthe parents and preschool teachers assessed as most frequently used by toddlers 16- to30-months-old. Among all of the words on the Vocabulary scale, parents mostfrequently marked the following 33 words in order of frequency (f = 136–97):mommy, daddy, bow wow, ouch, grandma, moo, yes, no, will, meow, oops/oh-oh,i

car, thank you, grandpa, the toddler’s name, aunt, banana, slippers, peek-a-boo, good-bye/bye, hello, ball, cat, tea, bellybutton, leg, nose, lamp, juice, baa-baa, balloon, head,hand, clock/watch. However, the preschool teachers marked the following 33 wordsas the most frequent (f = 121–85): bow wow, mommy, ouch, meow, car, moo, daddy,peek-a-boo, slippers, banana, cat, ball, tea, yes, won’t, apple, juice, leg, nose, water,

Figure 1. Average parents’ and preschool teachers’ assessments per individual word groupsincluded on the Vocabulary scale.

Figure 2. Average number of words on the Vocabulary scale used by toddlers of variousages: parents’ and preschool teachers’ assessment.

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

32 L. Marjanovic-Umek et al.

chair, thank you, bear, blocks, hand, grandpa, baa-baa, pants, lamp, goodbye/bye,vroom/zoom, balloon, soup.Figure 1. Average parents’ and preschool teachers’ assessments per individual word groups included on the Vocabulary scale.Figure 2. Average number of words on the Vocabulary scale used by toddlers of various ages: parents’ and preschool teachers’ assessment.The correlation between the score for a parent and a preschool teacher may notnecessarily show agreement between the two raters. For example, a parent and apreschool teacher may agree that a child’s vocabulary comprises 20 words, but theymay not exactly agree which words these are. This is why Cohen’s kappa was alsocalculated to assess word-by-word inter-rater agreement. Kappa indicates whatpercentage of all the items would be expected to be non-concordant if nothing morethan chance coincidence were operating in the situation; in fact, this was concordantin the two raters. In other words, kappa is the percentage of inter-rater agreement withcorrection for chance agreement.

To analyse the inter-rater agreement for child vocabulary, the words in each wordgroup were counted separately that both the parent and the preschool teacher claimedthat the child uses (or does not use), and the words that the parent and the preschoolteacher disagreed whether the child uses. For each child, a simple unweighted kappa(Cohen 1960) for binary variables was then calculated and divided by the maximumpossible kappa value. This correction was made due to the fact that the marginalfrequencies were not equal for different children (marginal frequencies are, amongother factors, affected by the child’s age). The correction made the kappa valuescomparable among children. The calculated κc values therefore showed the percent-age of agreement corrected for chance agreement (lower bound) and for maximumpossible value (upper bound). The kappas were calculated for each child separately,for each of the 22 groups of words.

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics on κc. The values of κc were gathered for140 children on 22 groups of words (measuring child vocabulary). Because somegroups of words contained a low number of items, the groups of words were combinedaccording to their lexical category. The groups Verbs and Adjectives containedenough items to represent their own word class. Two new word classes were deter-mined: Nouns and Other Structures, containing all remaining groups of words. Thelast row of Table 2 also shows statistics on the values of κc for the total Vocabulary.

On average, the agreement between the two raters was well above chance agree-ment. According to Landis and Koch (1977), kappas ranging from .41 to .60 indicatemoderate agreement, from .61 to .80 substantial agreement, and from .81 to 1.00almost perfect agreement. Roughly speaking, the median κc in Table 2 shows moder-ate agreement between two raters in the larger word groups (values ranged between.48 and .56 in different children). In other words, the percentage of agreement of thetwo raters was somewhere in the middle of the range of possible values. In somegroups of words, a median κc even greater than .60 can be observed, indicating asubstantial or almost perfect agreement. However, it has to be stressed that the valuesof κc differed substantially for different children. The interquartile range – that is, thedifference between Q1 and Q3 (see the last two columns of Table 2) – was very largein most categories. These differences may be the reason for relatively low partialcorrelations between the total scores for mothers and for preschool teachers. Namely,a high agreement between the two raters will lead to similar total scores in both raters,but if there are several cases with low inter-rater agreement, which leads to differenttotal scores for the two raters, this will lower the correlation of the total scoresobtained with both raters.

Overall, it can be inferred that the agreement between parents and preschool teach-ers on child’s vocabulary was adequate. The next step was to examine the effects

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 33

(child’s gender and parental education) on the scores obtained with parent’s ratingsand those obtained with preschool teacher’s ratings.

What influences parents’ and preschool teachers’ assessments of toddler language competence?

Because there was no perfect agreement between the parents’ and preschool teachers’assessments, we wished to establish what causes the differences in the assessmentsprovided by these two groups of raters. A multivariate analysis of variance was usedto check whether parental education and toddlers’ gender had any significant impacton parents’ and preschool teachers’ assessments of toddler language competence.Table 3 shows assessments of toddler language on individual scales. Tables 4 and 5show the MANOVA results per individual areas of toddler language competence,taking into account toddler age. Parental education (the years of formal education theyhave completed) was included in the analysis as a covariate. All of the hypotheseswere tested based on a 5% risk rate.

Table 2: Descriptive statistics for corrected simple unweighted Kappas (κc) for differentgroups of words.

Scale Number of items Mina Me Q1 Q3

Nouns 400 −.04 .56 .48 .70Interjections 12 −2.00 .43 .00 1.00Animals 43 −1.15 .51 .00 1.00Mobiles 14 −.17 1.00 .22 1.00Toys 18 −.29 .68 .09 1.00Food 68 −.08 .65 .36 .98Clothes 28 .00 .58 .23 1.00Body parts 27 −.35 1.00 .43 1.00House 50 −.22 .61 .18 1.00Furniture 33 −.27 .66 .06 1.00Outside 31 −.11 .69 .36 1.00Places 22 −.83 .90 .00 1.00People 29 −.71 .69 .41 1.00Playing 25 −.67 .48 .00 1.00

Verbs 103 −.15 .53 .17 1.00Adjectives 63 −.11 .55 .00 1.00Other structures 114 −.25 .48 .00 .72

Time 12 −1.00 1.00 .00 1.00Pronouns 25 −.14 .62 .00 1.00Questions 7 −1.33 1.00 .00 1.00Propositions 26 −.53 .51 .00 1.00Quantifiers 17 −.42 .71 .00 1.00Auxiliary verbs 21 −.40 .45 .00 1.00Conjunctions 6 −.33 1.00 .00 1.00

Vocabulary: All items 680 −.03 .56 .49 .69

Note: Only minimum values of κc are shown. The maximum values were 1.00 for all categories.

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

34 L. Marjanovic-Umek et al.

The MANOVA results showed that parental education (Wilks’ Lambda = .429,F (1, 74) = 4.53, p = .01, Partial Eta Squared = .268) and toddlers’ gender (Wilks’Lambda = .873, F (1, 74) = 3.44, p = .000, Partial Eta Squared = .218) had a statisti-cally significant and high general impact on parents’ assessments of toddler languagecompetence. Toddlers’ gender had a statistically significant impact on parents’ assess-ments of toddler language competence on the following scales: Vocabulary, Speaks ofPast and Future Activities and Absent Things or Persons, and Overgeneralisation ofSyntax Rules. On all three scales, parents gave significantly higher scores to girls.Parental education had a statistically significant impact on parents’ assessments on thefollowing scales: Vocabulary, Speaks of Past and Future Activities and Absent Thingsor Persons, Overgeneralisation of Syntax Rules, and Mean Length of Utterance. Thehigher the education of parents, the higher the scores they gave to their toddlers on allfour scales.

In addition, the general effect of parental education on preschool teachers’ assess-ments just reached the boundary of statistical significance (Wilks’ Lambda = .702,F(1, 74) = 2.237, p = .05, Partial Eta Squared = .154), whereas the general impact oftoddlers’ gender did not have a statistically significant impact on preschool teachers’assessments (Wilks’ Lambda = .862, F(1, 74) = 1.332, p = .254, Partial Eta Squared= .097). The obtained results showed that neither toddlers’ gender nor parental educa-tion had a statistically significant impact on preschool teachers’ assessments of toddlerlanguage competence on individual scales.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of parents’ and preschool teachers’ assessments on individualscales by toddlers’ gender.

ParentsPreschool teachers

Scale Gender N M SD M SD

Vocabulary M 45 317.40 182.95 245.84 190.72F 38 353.76 191.02 201.36 173.29Total 83 334.04 186.43 225.48 183.21

Speaks of past and future activities and absent things or persons

M 45 4.46 0.96 3.48 1.50

F 38 4.65 0.84 3.73 1.82Total 83 4.55 0.91 3.60 1.65

Word Form and Meaning M 45 2.37 1.58 1.44 1.50F 38 2.13 1.50 1.28 1.48Total 83 2.26 1.54 1.37 1.48

Overgeneralis-ation of Syntax Rules M 45 0.11 0.98 0.26 1.04F 38 0.33 0.91 0.12 0.95Total 83 0.21 0.94 0.19 1.00

Mean Length of Utterance M 45 2.88 2.34 2.06 2.25F 38 2.96 1.98 2.45 1.97Total 83 2.92 2.17 2.24 2.12

Sentence Complexity M 45 11.17 11.70 6.95 9.53F 38 10.47 9.90 7.23 10.80Total 83 10.85 10.85 7.08 10.07

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 35

Tabl

e 4.

Impa

ct o

f to

ddle

rs’ g

ende

r on

sco

res

in p

aren

ts’

and

pres

choo

l te

ache

rs’

asse

ssm

ents

of

todd

ler

lang

uage

com

pete

nce.

Rat

erD

epen

dent

var

iabl

eM

S eff

ect

dfer

ror

MSE

Fp

Par

tial

η2

Par

ents

Voc

abul

ary

122,

322.

272

7921

500.

852

5.68

9.0

19.0

67S

peak

s of

Pas

t and

Fut

ure

Act

ivit

ies

and

Abs

ent

Thi

ngs

or P

erso

ns3.

463

790.

462

7.50

0.0

08.0

87

Wor

d F

orm

and

Mea

ning

0.00

279

1.75

00.

001

.972

.000

Ove

rgen

eral

isat

ion

of S

ynta

x R

ules

3.30

779

0.64

35.

140

.026

.061

Mea

n L

engt

h of

Utt

eran

ce7.

908

792.

969

2.66

3.1

07.0

33S

ente

nce

com

plex

ity

30.2

0179

86.3

790.

350

.556

.004

Pre

scho

ol t

each

ers

Voc

abul

ary

5,02

3.92

879

2225

4.14

80.

226

.636

.003

Spe

aks

of P

ast a

nd F

utur

e A

ctiv

itie

s an

d A

bsen

t T

hing

s or

Per

sons

4.38

379

2.39

21.

833

.180

.023

Wor

d F

orm

and

Mea

ning

s0.

243

791.

648

0.14

8.7

02.0

02O

verg

ener

alis

atio

n of

Syn

tax

Rul

es0.

043

790.

648

0.06

7.7

97.0

01M

ean

Len

gth

of U

tter

ance

7.93

179

3.62

92.

186

.143

.027

Sen

tenc

e C

ompl

exit

y12

.020

7987

.713

0.13

7.7

12.0

02

Not

e: d

f eff

ect w

as 1

for

all

dep

ende

nt v

aria

bles

.

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

36 L. Marjanovic-Umek et al.

Tabl

e 5.

Impa

ct o

f pa

rent

al e

duca

tion

on

scor

es i

n pa

rent

s’ a

nd p

resc

hool

tea

cher

s’ a

sses

smen

ts o

f to

ddle

r la

ngua

ge c

ompe

tenc

e.

Rat

erD

epen

dent

var

iabl

eM

S eff

ect

dfer

ror

MSE

Fp

Par

tial

η2

Par

ents

Voc

abul

ary

151,

010.

814

7921

500.

852

7.02

3.0

10.0

82S

peak

s of

Pas

t an

d F

utur

e A

ctiv

itie

s an

d A

bsen

t T

hing

s or

Per

sons

4.75

279

0.46

210

.290

.002

.115

Wor

d F

orm

and

Mea

ning

2.13

479

1.75

01.

219

.273

.015

Ove

rgen

eral

isat

ion

of S

ynta

x R

ules

3.00

679

0.64

34.

672

.034

.056

Mea

n L

engt

h of

Utt

eran

ce41

.494

792.

969

13.9

75.0

00.1

50S

ente

nce

Com

plex

ity

191.

149

7986

.379

2.21

3.1

41.0

27

Pre

scho

ol t

each

ers

Voc

abul

ary

4,57

2.02

379

2225

4.14

80.

205

.652

.003

Spe

aks

of P

ast

and

Fut

ure

Act

ivit

ies

and

Abs

ent

Thi

ngs

or P

erso

ns3.

526

792.

392

1.47

4.2

28.0

18

Wor

d F

orm

and

Mea

ning

4.08

379

1.64

82.

477

.120

.030

Ove

rgen

eral

isat

ion

of S

ynta

x R

ules

0.95

479

0.64

81.

472

.229

.018

Mea

n L

engt

h of

Utt

eran

ce0.

055

793.

629

0.01

5.9

02.0

00S

ente

nce

Com

plex

ity

101.

108

7987

.713

1.15

3.2

86.0

14

Not

e: d

f eff

ect w

as 1

for

all

dep

ende

nt v

aria

bles

.

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 37

Discussion

The significant positive correlations between parents’ and preschool teachers’ assess-ments of toddler language competence demonstrate that parents and preschool teach-ers assess toddlers’ language relatively similarly regardless of the different contexts inwhich they listen and talk to toddlers. Preschool teachers gave higher scores to toddlersthat received high scores from their parents on individual scales than to toddlers thatreceived low scores from their parents (see Table 1). However, although they weresignificant, the correlations between parents’ and preschool teachers’ assessmentswere low to moderately high, which shows that parents’ and preschool teachers’assessments of toddler language competence differ to some extent. The highest corre-lations, which reflected the greatest similarity between parents’ and preschool teach-ers’ assessments, were observed on the Mean Length of Utterance and Vocabularyscales. In turn, the lowest correlations between parents’ and preschool teachers’assessments were established on the Speaks of Past and Future Activities and AbsentThings or Persons and Word Form and Meaning scales. These two scales involve amore detailed assessment of the grammatical structure of toddlers’ speech, which canlargely be connected with the opportunity for toddlers’ language expression in specificsocial contexts, familiarisation with grammatical rules, and the accuracy of listeningto toddlers’ speech. Parents gave higher scores to their toddlers than the preschoolteachers on all scales, except for part of the Overgeneralisation of Syntax Rules scale.On this scale, preschool teachers marked the answer ‘neither of these’ more often thanthe parents; ‘neither of these’ means that toddlers do not use or generalise the gram-matical rules of declension and conjugation. In other words: parents indicated morefrequently than the preschool teachers that their toddlers either correctly used or incor-rectly generalised the grammatical rules of declension and conjugation. The analysisof toddler vocabulary scores showed that, compared to preschool teachers, parentsjudged that toddlers in all age groups used more words (see Figure 1) and that theyused more words in all of the word groups included in the Vocabulary scale (seeFigure 2). Although the agreement between parents’ and preschool teachers’ assess-ments of toddler vocabulary is relatively good (see Table 1), additional calculations ofagreement between assessments of the same words used by the same toddlers showcertain differences between word groups (see Table 2). Agreement between parentsand preschool teachers was the greatest with regard to identifying words used bytoddlers to denote vehicles, parts of the body, places, and time expressions, as well asthe use of interrogatives and conjunctions. Their assessments agreed the least withregard to identifying interjections, words denoting games and daily activities, and theuse of auxiliary and modal verbs. A more detailed analysis of words identified intoddler vocabulary by their parents and preschool teachers showed that preschoolteachers recognised the majority of words that toddlers most frequently use at home(e.g. mommy, daddy, grandma, bow wow, car, thank you). Words that only parentsidentified as the most frequent included those denoting people (e.g. grandpa, aunt, thetoddler’s name), activities (e.g. ‘hello’ when making a phone call), and objects (e.g.clock/watch); these are words that may be more typical of the family than thepreschool environment. Words that preschool teachers identified as most frequentincluded words denoting activities connected with food and games (e.g. apple, water,chair, blocks, pants, soup). The average parental assessments of toddler vocabulary aremore comparable with parents’ assessments on a standardisation sample of Americantoddlers using the CDI/Words and Sentences inventory (Fenson et al. 2004) than with

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

38 L. Marjanovic-Umek et al.

the average preschool teachers’ assessments. Preschool teachers’ assessments arelower for all toddler age groups than parents’ assessments. The differences betweenparents’ and preschool teachers’ assessments obtained in this study may be explainedby more diverse and a larger number of opportunities for encouraging and identifyingtoddlers’ language that parents have at their disposal in the immediate and extendedfamily environment (e.g. routine activities, reading together, play, spending timeoutdoors, etc.). A preschool teacher, who can have up to a maximum of 14 toddlers ina group and works together with an assistant for only part of the day, definitely hasfewer opportunities to engage in conversation with individual toddlers and thus alsofewer opportunities to note the words and sentence structures the toddlers may alreadyuse. The findings of a Slovenian study (Fekonja et al. 2005; Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek,Fekonja, and Bajc 2005), which assessed the quality of encouraging toddler/childlanguage competence, demonstrate certain deficiencies in encouraging toddlers’language, especially in the 1- to 3-year-old age group, during the performance ofplanned language activities as defined in the 1999 Preschool Curriculum (while read-ing together, preschool teachers ask toddlers predominantly limited-choice questions,to which toddlers reply with one word, or they frequently engage toddlers with higherlanguage competence in conversation) and during the performance of other activities,such as routine activities and play (they predominantly use the regulatory function oflanguage, rarely encourage toddlers to tell stories during meals and while putting onclothes; they more often talk to older preschool children than to toddlers during theirtime at preschool and during various activities). Findings of other studies have alsoconfirmed that routine activities can provide many opportunities for encouraging thelanguage expression of toddlers, who often use their first words in highly structuredand familiar situations, such as when putting on clothes and during meals (see forexample, Browne 1996; French et al. 1985; Nelson 1978). In general, researchers (seefor example, Feldman et al. 2005; Pellegrini and Galda 1998) have established that,especially in early development stages, parents are valid raters of their toddlers’language. They often enter into verbal interactions with their toddlers in familiar situ-ations and are motivated to monitor their toddlers’ early development of language.This also enables them to identify new and rare words or utterances. On the other hand,their assessments may also be too high due to greater subjectivity and socially desiredanswers. Dale et al. (1989) believe that assessments of toddlers’/children’s parentsmay be influenced by their subjective involvement or bias and their lack of linguisticknowledge and knowledge of developmental psychology.

Exactly due to the above, this study focused especially on what factors could influ-ence parents’ and preschool teachers’ assessments and perhaps help explain the differ-ences between the raters. The results obtained showed that parental education andtoddlers’ gender do not have the same effect on parents’ and preschool teachers’assessments (see Tables 4 and 5). Parental education proved to be an important factorof the assessments of toddlers’ language, given by parents but not by the preschoolteachers. Compared to parents with a lower education, parents with a high educationindicated that their toddlers use more extensive vocabulary, talk more often about pastevents and events that will happen in the future, and objects and persons not present,more often use or generalise the grammatical rules of declension and conjugationcorrectly, and form longer multiword utterances. The obtained results support thefindings of several other studies (Bornstein and Haynes 1998; Browne 1996; Marjan-ovi[ccaron] -Umek et al. 2008a), which show that parental education is an important factorinfluencing the language competence of children at various development stages. For

c

c

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 39

example, Fenson et al. (1994) report that there is a significant and positive correlationbetween parental education and toddler vocabulary as assessed by their parents usingthe CDI/Words and Sentences Inventory in the period between 16 and 30 months ofage. Parental education had a lower impact on the general preschool teachers’ assess-ments than on those of the parents, and proved insignificant with assessments on indi-vidual scales. Preschool teachers gave comparable scores to toddlers of parents withvarious education levels. This may be the result of the fact that compared to the familyenvironment, toddlers whose parents have a lower education receive a great deal ofappropriate encouragement and many opportunities for language expression atpreschool. Namely, the findings of a Slovenian study (Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek and Fekonja2006) suggest that preschool is an important compensating factor in the languagedevelopment of primarily those toddlers/children whose parents have a lower educa-tion and come from a less stimulating family environment. Early preschool inclusion(i.e. at the age of one) helped reduce the impact of maternal education on children’slanguage competence and provided a higher quality environment and more encourage-ment for the development of language to children whose mothers have a low educa-tion. The results that show that preschool teachers gave lower scores to toddlers thanthe parents on all of the scales can be connected with the findings that preschoolprovides and encourages the use of language in toddlers with high parental educationto a lesser extent than the family environment.

Similarly toddlers’ gender had a significant impact on parents’ assessments, butnot the preschool teachers’ assessments of toddlers’ language, although the preschoolteachers even gave slightly higher scores to the vocabulary used by boys than that ofgirls. Parents’ assessments show that girls use more extensive vocabulary, morefrequently talk about the past events and events that will happen in the future, objects,and people not present, and more often correctly use or generalise the grammaticalrules of declension and conjugation than boys. Fenson et al. (2004) also reported thatparents assessed the vocabulary used by girls 16- to 30-months-old as more extensivethan the vocabulary used by boys of the same age. Similar findings were establishedby other researchers (Berk 1997; Bornstein and Haynes 1998; D’Odorico et al. 2001;Huttenlocher et al. 1991), whose research findings confirm certain important differ-ences in the language competence of girls and boys at various development stages; forexample, that girls use their first words earlier, master grammar earlier, form longerutterances, and use more extensive vocabulary than boys. To some extent, the differ-ent impact of toddlers’ gender on parents’ and preschool teachers’ assessments maybe also connected with their implicit theories or beliefs about the language compe-tence of boys and girls, and typical girls’ and boys’ activities, which also influencesthe behaviour of their parents and preschool teachers and their treatment of girls andboys (Goodnow and Collins 1996; Harkness and Super 1996). Because they believethat girls have higher language competence than boys, perhaps girls’ parents tend tomore frequently enter into verbal interactions with them and thus have the opportunityto hear more words and utterances than boys’ parents, who may largely encouragethem to engage in certain other activities. Preschool teachers encourage boys and girlsto engage in the same activities in a more planned manner, thus providing morecomparable opportunities for boys and girls to use language in various contexts; thisis most likely due to the fact that they have more knowledge and that the curriculumdirects them to take into account equal opportunities for different children (includingin terms of gender). Of course this does not mean that the contexts shaped in this wayenable optimal equal development of boys’ and girls’ language competence.

c

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

40 L. Marjanovic-Umek et al.

Regardless of all of the above, preschool teachers provided assessments oftoddlers’ language fairly similar to those of parents. These findings suggest thatpreschool teachers could be included in the assessments of toddler language as ratersin addition to parents. Similar to the findings of some other researchers (Bornstein andHaynes 1998; Zimmerman, Steiner, and Evatt Pond 1991), who believe that parents’assessments of toddlers’ language can expand the interpretation of toddlers’ scoresobtained in a test situation, we believe that preschool teachers’ assessment of toddlers’scores can represent a value added to parents’ assessment or the assessment of toddlerlanguage competence in a test situation. The advantage of preschool teachers overparents lies in the fact that they can more frequently observe toddlers’ conversation insocial activities (e.g. role play, interactive games, when talking to peers and establish-ing social interactions) and also compare the language used by several toddlers of thesame or a similar age. The validity of preschool teachers’ assessments could probablybe enhanced through additional training that would sensitise them to observingtoddlers’ language use during various preschool activities.

Note1. Words that differed in parents’ and teachers’ assessments are given in italics.

ReferencesApostolos, E., and M. Napoleon. 2001. Word-meaning development in Greek children’s

language: The role of children’s sex and parents educational level. Paper presented at the10th European Conference on Developmental Psychology, 22–26 August, Uppsala.

Bates, E., and G.F. Carnevale. 1993. New directions in research on language development.Developmental Review 13: 436–70.

Bates, E., I. Bretherton, and L. Snyder. 1988. From first words to grammar: Individual differ-ences and dissociable mechanisms. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Bee, H.L., K.E. Barnard, S.J. Eyres, C.A. Gray, M.A. Hammond, A.L. Spietz, C. Snyde, andB. Clark. 1982. Prediction of IQ and language skill from perinatal status, child perfor-mance, family characteristics and mother–infant interaction. Child Development 53:1134–56.

Berk, L.E. 1997. Child development. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Bornstein, M.H., and O.M. Haynes. 1998. Vocabulary competence in early childhood:

Measurement, latent construct, and predictive validity. Child Development 69: 654–71.Browne, A. 1996. Developing language and literacy 3–8. London: P.C.P.Butler, S., C. McMahon, and J.A. Ungerer. 2003. Maternal speech style with paralinguistic

twin infants. Infant and Child Development 12: 129–43.Cohen, J. 1960. A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Educational and Psychological

Measurement 20: 37–46.Dale, P.S. 1991. The validity of a parent report measure of vocabulary and syntax at 24 months.

Journal of Speech and Hearing Research 34: 565–71.Dale, P.S., E. Bates, J.S. Reznick, and C. Morisset. 1989. The validity of a parent report

instrument of child language at twenty months. Journal of Child Language 16: 239–49.DeBaryshe, D.B., J.C. Binder, and M.J. Buell. 2000. Mothers’ implicit theories of early liter-

acy instruction: Implications for children’s reading and writing. Early Child Developmentand Care 160: 119–31.

D’Odorico, L., S. Carubbi, N. Salerni, and V. Calvo. 2001. Vocabulary development in Italianchildren: A longitudinal evaluation of quantitative and qualitative aspects. Journal ofChild Language 28: 351–72.

Eriksson, M. 2006. Sex differences in language development as a topic for cross-culturalcomparisons. Proceedings from the First European Network Meeting on the Communica-tive Development Inventories, 103–114.

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 41

Farver, J.A.M., and Wimbarti, S. 1995. Indonesian children’s play with their mothers andolder siblings. Child Development 66: 1493–503.

Fekonja, U. 2004. Razvoj otrokovega govora v razli[ccaron] nih socialnih kontekstih. Doctoral diss.,Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta.

Fekonja, U., and L. Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek. 2008. Mama in vzgojiteljica kot ocenjevalki otrokovegovorne kompetentnosti. Psiholo[scaron] ka obzorja 17: 5–20.

Fekonja, U., L. Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek, and S. Kranjc. 2005. Free play and other dailypreschool activities as a context for child’s language development. Studia Psychologica2: 103–17.

Feldman, H.M., C.A. Dollaghan, T.F. Campbell, M. Kurs-Lasky, J.E. Janosky, and J.L. Paradise.2000. Measurement properties of the MacArthur communicative development inventoriesat ages one and two years. Child Development 71: 310–22.

Feldman, H.M., C.A. Dollaghan, T.F. Campbell, D.K. Colborn, J. Janosky, M. Kurs-Lasky,H.E. Rockette, P.S. Dale and J.L. Paradise 2003. Parent-reported language skills in rela-tion to otitis media during the first 3 years of life. Journal of Speech and Language, andHearing Research 46: 273–78.

Feldman, H.M., P.S. Dale, T.F. Campbell, D.K. Colborn, M. Kurs-Lasky, H.E. Rockette, andJ.L. Paradise. 2005. Concurrent and predictive validity of parent reports of child languageat ages 2 and 3 years. Child Development 76: 856–68.

Fenson, L., P.S. Dale, J.S. Reznick, E. Bates, D. Thal, and S. Pethick. 1994. Variability inearly communicative development. Monographs of the Society for Research in ChildDevelopment 59, serial. no. 242.

Fenson, L., P.S. Dale, J.S., Reznick, D. Thal, E. Bates, J.P. Hartung, S. Pethick, and J.S. Reilly.2004. MacArthur communicative development inventories. User’s guide and technicalmanual. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

French, L.A., J. Lucariello, S. Seidman, and K. Nelson. 1985. The influence of discoursecontent and context on preschooler’s use of language. In Play, language and stories, eds.L. Galda, and A.D. Pellegrini, 21–34. Norwood: Ablex Publishing Corporation.

Goldstein, J. 1995. Aggressive toy play. In The future of play theory: A multidisciplinaryinquiry into the contributions of Brian Sutton-Smith, ed. A.D. Pellegrini, 127–50. NewYork: State University of New York Press.

Goodnow, J.J., and W.A. Collins. 1996. Acceptable ignorance, negotiable disagreement:Alternative views of learning. In The handbook of education and human development,eds. D.R. Olson, and N. Torrance, 345–68. Cambridge: Blackwell Publishers.

Harkness, S., and C.M. Super. eds. 1996. Parent’s cultural belief system: Their origins,expressions, and consequences. New York: The Guilford Press.

Hoff, E. 2003. Causes and consequences of SES-related differences in parent-to-child speech.In Socioeconomic status, parenting, and child development, eds. M.H. Bornestein, andR.H. Bradely, 147–60. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Huttenlocher, J., W. Haight, A. Bryk, M. Seltzer, and T. Lyons. 1991. Early vocabularygrowth: Relation to language input and gender. Developmental Psychology 27, no. 2:236–48.

Kova[ccaron] evi[cacute] , M., J. Kraljevi[cacute] , and M. Cepanec. 2006. Sex differences in lexical and grammati-cal development in Croatian. Proceedings from the First European Network Meeting onthe Communicative Development Inventories, 5–15.

Landis, J.R., and G.G. Koch. 1977. The measurement of observer agreement for categoricaldata. Biometrics 33: 159–74.

Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek, L., and U. Fekonja. 2006. U[ccaron] inek vrtca na otrokov govorni razvoj: sloven-ska vzdol[zcaron] na [scaron] tudija. Sodobna pedagogika 57: 44–64.

Marjanovi -Umek, L., U. Fekonja, and K. Bajc. eds. 2005. Pogled v vrtec. Ljubljana: Dr avniizpitni center.

Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek, L., U. Fekonja, S. Kranjc, and K. Bajc. 2008a. The effect of children’s sexand parental education on toddler language development. European Early ChildhoodEducation Research Journal 16: 325–42.

Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek, L., U. Fekonja, S. Kranjc, and K. Bajc. 2008b. Lista razvoja sporazume-valnih zmo[zcaron] nosti za mal[ccaron] ke, stare od 16 do 30 mesecev: besede in stavki [CommunicativeDevelopment Inventory for Toddlers 16 to 30 Months Old]. Internal material. Ljubljana:Oddelek za psihologijo Filozofske fakultete v Ljubljani.

c

cs

c

c c c

c cz s

c z

c

cz c

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

42 L. Marjanovic-Umek et al.

Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek, L., U. Fekonja, A. Podlesek, S. Kranjc, and K. Bajc. 2008. Lestvicesplo[scaron] nega govornega razvoja - LJ: (LSGR - LJ): priro[ccaron] nik [Scales of General LanguageDevelopment–LJ: Manual]. Ljubljana: Center za psihodiagnosti[ccaron] na sredstva.

Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek, L., S. Kranjc, and U. Fekonja. 2006. Otro[scaron] ki govor: razvoj in u[ccaron] enje.Dom[zcaron] ale: Zalo[zcaron] ba Izolit.

Marjanovi[ccaron] -Umek, L., A. Podlesek, and U. Fekonja. 2005. Assessing home literacy environ-ment: Relations to the child’s language comprehension and expression. European Journalof Psychological Assessment 21: 271–81.

Nelson, K.E. 1978. Semantic development and the development of sematic memory. InChildren’s language, ed. K.E. Nelson, 21–32. New York: Gardner.

O’Hanlon, L., and D.J. Thal. 1991. Validation of a parental reporting tool in a preschoollanguage impaired population. Poster presented at the American Speech-Language andHearing Association Annual Conference, Atlanta, GA, 22–25 November.

Pajares, P. 1992. Teacher’s beliefs and educational research: Cleaning up a messy construct.Review of Educational Research 3: 307–32.

Pellegrini, A., and L. Galda. 1998. The development of school-based literacy. A social ecolog-ical perspective. London: Routledge.

Polak, A. 1996. Subjektivne teorije star[scaron] ev in [scaron] tudentov glede na smer izobrazbe in pedago[scaron] keizku[scaron] nje. Master’s thesis. Ljubljana: Univerza v Ljubljani, Filozofska fakulteta.

Reese, E., and S. Read. 2000. Predictive validity of the New Zealand MacArthur communi-cative development inventory: Words and sentences. Journal of Child Language 27:255–66.

Rescorla, L. 1989. The language development survey: A screening tool for delayed languagein toddlers. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 54: 587–99.

Rescorla, L., and A. Alley. 2001. Validation of the language development survey (LDS): Aparent report tool for identifying delay in toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language, andHearing Research 44: 434–45.

Reznick, J.S., and B.A. Goldfield. 1994. Diary vs. representative checklist assessment ofproductive vocabulary. Journal of Child Language 21: 465–72.

Reynell, J., and M. Huntley. 1985. Reynell developmental language scales (Second revision).Windsor: NFER–Nelson.

Ring, E.D., and L. Fenson. 2000. The correspondence between parent report and childperformance for receptive and expressive vocabulary beyond infancy. First Language 20:141–59.

Roulstone, S., S. Loader, K. Northstone, M. Beverdoige, and The Alspect Team. 2002. Thespeech and language of children aged 25 months: Descriptive data from the Avon longitu-dinal study of parents and children. Early Child Development and Care 172: 259–68.

Ruble, V. 1988. Sex-role development. New York: McGraw-Hill.Sénéchal, M., J. LeFevre, E. Thomas, and K. Daley. 1998. Differential effects of home liter-

acy experiences on the development of oral and written language. Reading ResearchQuarterly 32: 96–116.

Siegel, I.E., and M. Kim. 1996. The answer depends on the question: A conceptual and meth-odological analysis of a parent belief-behaviour interview regarding children’s learning.In Parent’s cultural belief system: Their origins, expressions, and consequences, eds. S.Harkness, and C.M. Super, 83–120. New York: The Guilford Press.

Thal, D., and D. Jackson-Maldonado. 2000. Validity of parent-report measure of vocabularyand grammar for Spanish-speaking toddlers. Journal of Speech, Language and HearingResearch 43: 1087–100.

Tomblin, J.B., C.M. Shonrock, and J.C. Hardy. 1989. The concurrent validity of the Minnesotachild development inventory as a measure of young children’s language development.Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders 54: 101–5.

Tulviste, T. 2006. Variation in vocabulary development among Estonian children as a func-tion of child’s gender, birth order, child-care, and parental education. Proceedings fromthe first European network meeting on communicative development inventories, 16–21.Zagreb: University of Zagreb.

Weigel, D.J., S.S. Martin, and K.K. Bennett. 2006. Mother’s literacy beliefs: Connectionswith the home literacy environment and pre-school children’s literacy development,Journal of Early Childhood Literacy 6: 191–211.

cs c

cc s c

z zc

s s ss

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011

European Early Childhood Education Research Journal 43

Westerlund, M., and C. Sundelin. 2000. Screening for developmental language disability in3-year-old children. Experiences from a field study in a Swedish municipality. Child:Care, Health and Development 26: 91–110.

Zimmerman, I.L., V.G. Steiner, and R. Evatt Pond. 1991. PLS 3, preschool language scale.Examiner manual. San Antonio: The Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Downloaded By: [Peklaj, Urška Fekonja] At: 06:52 24 March 2011