CoDAS
http://www.codas.periodikos.com.br/article/doi/10.1590/2317-1782/20202019154
CoDAS
Artigo Original

Aplicação de um instrumento de triagem do vocabulário para crianças entre 3 e 7 anos: estudo piloto

Application of a vocabulary screening instrument for children between 3- and 7-years-old: a pilot study

Alexandre Lucas de Araújo Barbosa, Flávia Ferreira Lemos, Cíntia Alves Salgado Azoni

Downloads: 0
Views: 176

Resumo

Objetivo: descrever o desempenho em vocabulário expressivo e receptivo de crianças entre três e sete anos de idade em um instrumento de triagem. Método: a amostra foi composta por 133 crianças entre três e sete anos de idade, sem diagnósticos de deficiências ou transtornos do neurodesenvolvimento. Para a triagem, foi utilizado o instrumento TRILHAR, que inclui as habilidades de vocabulário receptivo e expressivo. Os dados foram analisados pelos testes Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney e Correlação de Spearman. Resultado: houve diferença no desempenho dos grupos, além de correlação positiva entre a faixa etária e a pontuação na triagem. Ainda, verificou-se diferença nos desempenhos das provas de vocabulário receptivo e expressivo. Conclusão: Foi verificada diferença no desempenho dos grupos nas tarefas de vocabulário receptivo, expressivo e no resultado final, com melhores resultados para o grupo de sete anos. Além disso, observou-se correlação positiva entre a idade e o desempenho na triagem, ou seja, quanto maior a idade, melhor o desempenho.

Palavras-chave

Vocabulário; Criança; Linguagem Infantil; Programas de Rastreamento; Estudo de Validação  

Abstract

Purpose: to describe the performance of children between three and seven years of age in a expressive and receptive screening instrument. Methods: the sample consisted of 133 children between 3 and 7 years of age, without diagnoses of neurodevelopmental disabilities or disorders. For screening, the TRILHAR instrument was used, which includes receptive and expressive vocabulary skills. The data were analyzed by the Kruskal-Wallis, Mann-Whitney and Spearman Correlation tests. Results: there was a statistical difference in the performance of the groups, in addition to a positive correlation between the age group and the final score in the screening. There was statistical difference in the performance on the receptive and expressive vocabulary subtests. Conclusion: there was a difference in the performance of the groups in receptive and expressive tasks, and in the final result, with better performance for the children with 7 years. In addition, a positive correlation was observed between age and performance on the screening test, that is, the older the age, the better the performance.

Keywords

Vocabulary; Child; Child Language; Mass Screening; Validation Study

Referências

1. Ferracini F, Capovilla AGS, Dias NM, Capovilla FC. Expressive and receptive vocabulary assessment in preschool. Rev Psicopedag. 2006;23(71):124-33.

2. Chow J, Davies AMA, Fuentes LJ, Plunkett K. The vocabulary spurt predicts the emergence of backward semantic inhibition in 18-months-old toddlers. Dev Sci. 2018:22(2):e12754. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/desc.12754.

3. Gândara JP, Befi-Lopes DM. Trends on lexical acquisition in children within normal development and children with developmental language disorder. Rev Soc Bras Fonoaudiol. 2010;15(2):297-304.

4. Kraljević JK, Cepanec M, Simlesa S. Gestural development and it’s relation to a child’s early vocabulary. Infant Behav Dev. 2014;37(2):192-202. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.infbeh.2014.01.004. PMid:24583922.

5. Marjanovič-Umek L, Fekonja-Peklaj U, Podlesek A. Characteristics of early vocabulary and grammar development in slovenian-speaking infants and toddlers: a CDI-adaptation study. J Child Lang. 2013;40(4):779-98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000912000244. PMid:22863332.

6. Samuelson LL, McMurray B. What does it take to learn a word. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Cogn Sci. 2017;8(1-2):e1421. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ wcs.1421. PMid:27911490.

7. Ganger J, Brent MR. Reexamining the vocabulary spurt. Dev Psychol. 2004;40(4):621-32. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.40.4.621. PMid:15238048.

8. Parladé MV, Iverson JM. The interplay between language, gesture, and affect during communicative transition: a dynamic systems approach. Dev Psychol. 2011;47(3):820-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021811. PMid:21219063.

9. Song S, Su M, Kang C, Liu H, Zhang Y, McBride-Chang C, et al. Tracing children’s vocabulary development from preschool through the school-age years: an 8-year longitudinal study. Dev Sci. 2015;18(1):119-31. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/desc.12190. PMid:24962559.

10. Duff D, Tomblin J, Catts H. The influence of reading on vocabulary growth: a case of a Matthew Effect. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015;58(3):853-64. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-13-0310. PMid:25812175.

11. ASHA: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. Spoken language disorders [Internet]. Rockville: American Speech-Language-Hearing Association; c1997-2019 [cited 2019 Jan 30]; [about 5 screens]. Available from: https://www.asha.org/PRPSpecificTopic.aspx?folderid=858993532 7§ion=Signs_and_Symptoms.

12. Rescorla L, Turner HL. Morphology and sintax in late talkers at age 5. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2015;58(2):434-44. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/2015_ JSLHR-L-14-0042. PMid:25631704.

13. Capone Singleton N. Late talkers: why the wait-and-see approach is outdated. Pediatr Clin North Am. 2018;65(1):13-29. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. pcl.2017.08.018. PMid:29173713.

14. Marcotte A, Parker C, Furey W, Hands J. An examination of the validity of the dynamic indicators of vocabulary skills (DIVS). J Psychoed Assess. 2014;32(2):133-45. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0734282913498849.

15. Psyridou M, Eklund K, Poikkeus AM, Torppa M. Reading outcomes of children with delayed early vocabulary: a follow-up from age 2-16. Res Dev Disabil. 2018;78:114-24. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.05.004. PMid:29805034.

16. van Daal J, Verhoeven L, van Balkom H. Behaviour problems in children with language impairment. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2007;48(11):1139- 47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01790.x. PMid:17995490.

17. Guimarães C, Oda A. Instrumentos de avaliação de linguagem infantil: aplicabilidade em deficientes. Rev CEFAC. 2013;15(6):1690-702. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516-18462013000600033.

18. Barbosa ALA, Soares HB, Azoni CAS. Construção de um instrumento de triagem do vocabulário para crianças entre 3 e 7 anos. Audiol Commun Res. 2019;24:e2131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/2317-6431-2019-2131.

19. Marcotte A, Clemens N, Parker C, Whitcomb S. Examining the classification accuracy of a vocabulary screening measure with preschool children. Assess Eff Interv. 2016;41(4):230-42. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1534508416632236.

20. Rescorla L. The language development survey: a screening tool for delayed language in toddlers. J Speech Hear Disord. 1989;54(4):587-99. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1044/jshd.5404.587. PMid:2811339.

21. Schaefer B, Bowyer-Crane C, Herrmann F, Fricke S. Development of a tablet application for the screening of receptive vocabulary skills in multilingual children: a pilot study. Child Lang Teach Ther. 2015;32(2):179-91. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265659015591634.

22. Cáceres-Assenço AM, Ferreira SCA, Santos AC, Befi-Lopes DM. Application of a Brazilian test of expressive vocabulary in European Portuguese children. CoDAS. 2018;30(2):e20170113. http://dx.doi. org/10.1590/2317-1782/20182017113. PMid:29791612.

23. Moretti TCF, Kuroishi RCS, Mandrá PP. Vocabulary of preschool children with typical language development and socioeducational variables. CoDAS. 2017;29(1):e20160098. PMid:28300961.

24. Pahom O, Farley A, Ramonda K. Are the best language learners from Mars or from Venus? Gender and vocabulary acquisition in the L2 spanish classroom. Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal. 2015;15(1):158-72.

25. Medeiros VP, Valença RKL, Guimarães JATL, Costa RCC. Expressive vocabulary and analyze the variables in a regional sample of students in Maceió. ACR. 2013;18(2):71-7.

26. Benedict H. Early lexical development: comprehension and production. J Child Lang. 1979;6(2):183-200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0305000900002245. PMid:468932.

27. Armonia AC, Mazzega LC, Pinto FCA, Souza ACRF, Perissinoto J, Tamanaha AC. Relação entre vocabulário receptivo e expressivo em crianças com transtorno específico do desenvolvimento da fala e da linguagem. Rev CEFAC. 2015;17(3):759-65. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/1982-021620156214.

28. Snodgrass JG, Vanderwart M. A standerdized set of 260 pictures: norms for name agreement, image agreement, familiarity and visual complexity. J Exp Psychol Hum Learn. 1980;6(2):174-215. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278- 7393.6.2.174. PMid:7373248.

29. Miranda MC, Pompéia S, Bueno OFA. Um estudo comparativo das normas de um conjunto de 400 figuras entre crianças brasileiras e americanas. Rev Bras Psiquiatr. 2004;26(4):226-33. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1516- 44462004000400005. PMid:15729455.

30. Laing SP, Kamhi A. Alternative assessment of language and literacy in culturally and linguistically diverse populations. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2003;34(1):44-55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1044/0161-1461(2003/005). PMid:27764486.


Submetido em:
15/06/2019

Aceito em:
22/05/2020

60c8c16ca9539529461bd3f2 codas Articles

CoDAS

Share this page
Page Sections