SLPOtherThe South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings2020

Development and evaluation of the Ingwavuma receptive vocabulary test: A tool for assessing receptive vocabulary in isiZulu-speaking preschool children.

Xolisile Mazibuko, Moses Chimbari

PMID 33314952

WHAT IT FOUND

Age and school were linked to scores on a new isiZulu receptive vocabulary screen, but it did not reliably separate delayed from typical vocabulary.

Use scores as one clue and confirm with other assessment.

Key findings

01The IRVT showed overall sensitivity of 66.7% and specificity of 33%, and five items had positive and negative predictive values below 50%.

02Scores varied significantly by age, with a high effect size, and by school attended, with a small effect size.

03Boys had a higher mean score than girls, while stunting was not significantly correlated with scores.

STILL TO COME

How it was doneWhat they foundWhat it means for SLPs

Read the rest of this summary

You get three full summaries a month, free, and we do not ask for a card. Search, the TL;DRs and your library stay unlimited either way.

Already have one?

What it does not show

The sample was small and mostly five-year-old children, with few four-year-olds and few children above six, so the results may not apply to the whole preschool age range. There was no accepted reference test in isiZulu to compare the IRVT against, so sensitivity, specificity and predictive values were limited. Specificity was 33%, and five items had predictive values below 50%, so the test is not ready for diagnostic decisions without item changes. Test-retest reliability included only eight children, and inter-rater reliability could not be measured because there was only one tester. Children had to pass hearing screening and have no developmental delays, so the study says nothing about children with hearing loss or other delays. The sample came from rural Ingwavuma and monolingual isiZulu preschools, so it may not generalise to urban or multilingual isiZulu-speaking children. Item selection relied on adult language users and curriculum books, and the four-year-old group was not the target for those books. No in-depth individualised socio-economic questionnaire was used, so risk factors for language delay may not have been fully captured.

The easy way to misread this

Do not treat a low score on this test as proof of receptive vocabulary delay. The study had no accepted reference standard, and specificity was 33%, so the test needs item changes and a larger sample before clinical decisions.

Read it on PubMed →