Marchman & Martnez-Sussmann: Validity of Parent Report in English and Spanish 983

Virginia A. Marchman
The University of Texas at Dallas
Carmen Martnez-Sussmann
American Institutes for Research
Palo Alto, CA
The validity of two analogous caregiver/parent report measures of early lan-
guage development in young children who are learning both English and Spanish
is examined. Caregiver/parent report indices of vocabulary production and
grammar were obtained for 26 children using the MacArthur Communicative
Development Inventory: Words & Sentences (CDI; Fenson et al., 1994) and the
Inventario del Desarrollo de Habilidades Comunicativas: Palabras y Enunciados
(IDHC; Jackson-Maldonado, Bates, & Thal, 1992). Scores were significantly
correlated with analogous laboratory measures in both English and Spanish,
including a real-object naming task and spontaneous language use during free-
play. The findings offer evidence that the CDI and IDHC provide valid assessments
of early language milestones in young English- and Spanish-speaking children.
Factors that may influence the validity of these tools for use with this population
are also discussed.
KEY WORDS: language assessment, parent report, toddlers, bilingualism,
English- and Spanish-language learners
Concurrent Validity of Caregiver/
Parent Report Measures of
Language for Children Who Are
Learning Both English and Spanish
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol. 45 983997 October 2002 American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
1092-4388/02/4505-0983
O
ver the last 15 years or so, caregiver/parent report has come
into widespread use as a method for assessing linguistic
achievements in young children who are learning English
(Fenson et al., 1993; Rescorla, 1989). Following the popularity of the
MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories (CDI), similar in-
struments have been developed in more than a dozen languages, includ-
ing Italian, Hebrew, French, and German (see http://www.sci.sdsu.edu/
cdi/ for a complete list). The Spanish-language Inventario del Desarrollo
de Habilidades Comunicativas: Palabras y Enunciados (IDHC; Jackson-
Maldonado et al., 1992) represents one early adaptation of the original
CDI instruments, developed in close collaboration with the original au-
thors of the CDIs. In many areas of the United States today, an increas-
ing number of children live in environments in which both Spanish and
English are spoken. In this study, we examine the concurrent validity of
the CDI: Words & Sentences and the IDHC: Palabras y Enunciados when
used in conjunction to assess early language milestones in this popula-
tion. We compare reported word production and grammar to structured
and spontaneous behavioral measures in a sample of toddlers (23 to 34
months old) who are learning both English and Spanish in a large met-
ropolitan area of the United States.
984 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol. 45 983997 October 2002
For toddlers with simultaneous exposure to Span-
ish and English, an adequate language assessment re-
quires an examination of lexical and grammatical skills
in both languages. Most typically, assessments involve
structured testing using norm-referenced or standard-
ized instruments. Unfortunately, few structured instru-
ments have been developed for English-speaking chil-
dren in this age range, and even fewer are available for
Spanish-speaking toddlers (see Jackson-Maldonado et
al., 1993, 2001 for review). Most Spanish versions that
do exist are direct translations of their English counter-
parts and do not incorporate relevant linguistic and cul-
tural differences or reflect adequate norming efforts (e.g.,
the Sequenced Inventory of Communication Develop-
mentSpanish Translation [Hedrick, Prather, & Tobin,
1984]). Others are Spanish adaptations with formats
parallel to the English tests, but many of these have
been criticized in terms of the particular lexical and
morphosyntactic items and the inappropriateness of
comparing bilingual children to monolingual norms
(Gutierrez-Clellen, 1996). Language sampling in a natu-
ralistic play situation is another popular technique, but
requires a considerable investment in time and train-
ing of personnel. Further, the behavior that is observed
can vary depending on context (e.g., home vs. clinic),
interlocutor (e.g., clinician vs. parent), and personality
factors (e.g., child shyness or talkativeness). Language
samples are also highly sensitive to the fact that cul-
tures differ in the types of behaviors that are viewed as
appropriate during play interactions with unfamiliar
adults (see Jackson-Maldonado et al., 2001).
Caregiver/parent report is an increasingly popu-
lar technique that has some advantages for use with
children in this age range. The technique is more cost-
effective than behavioral assessments in providing a
general evaluation of early developing skills. In addi-
tion, reports sample behaviors outside the laboratory or
clinic and reflect skills across a broad range of contexts
(Fenson et al., 1994). Caregiver/parent report may be
less sensitive to context or task effects than behavioral
measures, given that this technique does not require
that behaviors are observed at a particular place and
time (Bates, Bretherton, & Snyder, 1988). Although limi-
tations are well documented (e.g., Feldman et al., 2000;
Tomasello & Mervis, 1994), there is growing confidence
that properly constructed and administered caregiver/
parent report instruments can provide valid informa-
tion regarding a range of early lexical and grammatical
milestones.
On both the CDI and IDHC, word production is as-
sessed using a parallel checklist format in which words
are organized in semantically relevant categories (e.g.,
animals [animales], vehicles [vehculos]). The IDHC is
not a direct translation of the CDI, but incorporates lexi-
cal, grammatical, and cultural differences in Spanish.
Although there is overlap in the items, each checklist is
based on research on that language and includes words
that are linguistically and culturally relevant for their
respective American or Mexican/Mexican-American popu-
lations (Jackson-Maldonado et al., 1993, 2001). Parallel
checklist formats are also used for reporting the use of
word combinations and grammatical morphology. How-
ever, the items reflect aspects of grammar that are char-
acteristic of documented age-related changes for each lan-
guage. Still other sections follow formats that are unique
to each form, focusing on constructs that are particularly
relevant to English or Spanish acquisition. For example,
the CDI asks about the production of plural and past tense
overgeneralizations (e.g., blockses, goed), in light of their
significance for issues relating to the acquisition of mor-
phological regularities (e.g., Marchman & Bates, 1994).
The IDHC includes a list of frequent and early learned
verbs from each of the three major verb classes (-ar, -er,
and ir) and asks reporters to indicate if they have heard
the child produce the forms conjugated in the present
indicative, preterit, and imperative.
Norming information for the CDI is based on ap-
proximately 1200 monolingual English-speaking chil-
dren from three geographic areas in the United States
(Fenson et al., 1994). Validation studies compared scores
to several standardized and free-speech laboratory mea-
sures (Dale, 1991; Dale, Bates, Reznick, & Morriset,
1989; Tomblin, Shonrock, & Hardy, 1989). For example,
Dale (1991) notes that reported vocabulary was signifi-
cantly correlated (r = .74) with number of different words
produced in a language sample by 24-month-olds. Simi-
larly high correlations were observed between reported
grammar, Mean of the Three Longest Utterances (M3L)
and Complexity, and the behavioral index of Mean
Length of Utterance (MLU) (rs = .74 to .76). Norming
data for the IDHC (Jackson-Maldonado et al., 2001) are
based on monolingual Spanish-speaking children in sev-
eral areas in Mexico who represent a similar, albeit some-
what lower, socioeconomic distribution compared to that
in the norming of the CDI (see also Jackson-Maldonado
et al., 1993). A recent validation study with middle- and
upper-middle-class toddlers (Thal, Jackson-Maldonado,
& Acosta, 2000) reports significant correlations between
reported vocabulary and number of objects labeled in a
naming task and number of different words produced
in a language sample (rs = .56 to .69). Similar levels of
concordance were observed between MLU and reported
M3L (rs = .68 to .88). These results were comparable to
those reported for English-speaking children with typi-
cal language development (Dale, 1991) and older lan-
guage-delayed preschoolers (Thal, OHanlon, Clemmons,
& Frailin, 1999).
There is already some evidence that the technique
of caregiver/parent report is valid with children who are
learning both English and Spanish. For example, using
Marchman & Martnez-Sussmann: Validity of Parent Report in English and Spanish 985
earlier versions of the CDI and IDHC, Pearson and col-
leagues (Pearson & Fernndez, 1994; Pearson,
Fernndez, & Oller, 1993) showed that lexical develop-
ment in Spanish- and English-speaking children gener-
ally proceeds at the same rate as that observed in mono-
lingual populations. In these studies, production
vocabulary was assessed individually in each language,
but also in terms of total conceptual vocabulary. This
total score adds together those words that children were
reported to produce in one language only (in English, but
not Spanish; in Spanish, but not English), plus words
that were reported in both languages (i.e., translation
equivalents). Based on the Spanish-English Vocabulary
Checklist (SEVC), Patterson (1998) found that children
learning both English and Spanish generally demon-
strated progress that is in line with age-based expecta-
tions, including the timing of the 50-word point and the
onset of word combinations. Adapted from the Language
Development Survey (LDS; Rescorla, 1989), the SEVC
was developed specifically for Spanish-English-speaking
populations and contains two parallel word checklists
(in English and Spanish) on which parents indicate if
their child produces the word in English, Spanish, or
both languages. The SEVC also asks whether or not the
child is producing word combinations. In a validation
study, Patterson (2000) compared reported vocabulary
with number of different words produced during a free-
play session in which parents were told to use either or
both languages, in a manner similar to how they talked
with their child at home (p. 124). Correlations between
observed and reported vocabulary were similar to those
in studies with monolinguals (r = .66), and there was a
strong concordance between observed and reported use
of word combinations.
These studies indicate that caregiver/parent report
is valid when used with English- and Spanish-speaking
populations. However, the CDI and IDHC were originally
designed for use with monolingual learners, and it is not
yet known whether these instruments provide the same
level of validity as those specifically designed with bilin-
gual families in mind. The CDI and IDHC are typically
administered separately and hence have the advantage
of providing an independent picture of each language (a
sort of best look in both English and Spanish). At the
same time, following Pearson and Fernndez (1994),
responses from the checklists can be merged into a com-
posite view of a childs lexical progress. In addition, the
CDI and IDHC allow detailed evaluations of specific
morphological or syntactic constructions, in addition to
noting whether or not the child is producing multiword
combinations. Thus, these full-scale instruments pro-
vide an integrated view of lexical skill in the languages
taken together, but also assess a range of lexical and
grammatical constructs, including those that are spe-
cific to English or Spanish.
Although caregiver/parent report is thought to pro-
vide a more comprehensive view than other techniques,
the quality of the report is only as good as the experi-
ences of the reporters (Patterson, 2000; Pearson et al.,
1993). For example, daycare providers may have a dif-
ferent set of experiences upon which to base their re-
ports than a mother. Together, a day care provider and
a mother may provide a more accurate picture than ei-
ther would alone. For children learning two languages,
it is often the case that different individuals are the
sources of input for the two languages. For example, if a
child is exposed to English at daycare but Spanish in
the home, a parent may underestimate their childs use
of English given their limited exposure to situations in
which English is spoken. Other possible sources of bias
are also pertinent. Reports may under- or overestimate
ability when the child is demonstrating different lev-
els of skill in the two languages. Further, some report-
ers may have limited proficiency in English or Span-
ish and, hence, would have difficulty completing a form
in that language. On the other hand, if a parent com-
pletes both forms because the parent regularly use both
languages, that parent may report the production of
words or combinations in one language when they were
actually produced in the other (Pearson et al., 1995).
Finally, factors regarding the educational level of the
families or the degree to which they are acculturated
into the Anglo or Hispanic cultures could also affect the
accuracy of the reports (Arriaga, Fenson, Cronan, &
Pethick, 1998).
The goal of the current study is to evaluate whether
the CDI and IDHC provide valid estimates of early lexi-
cal and grammatical skills in children with regular expo-
sure to both English and Spanish. In order to assess the
childs best level of skill in each language, caregivers
were selected to complete the CDI and/or IDHC depend-
ing on their working knowledge of English or Spanish, as
well as their familiarity with the childs use of that lan-
guage. In some cases, the same individual(s) completed
both the CDI and IDHC; in other cases, different
reporter(s) filled out each form. Laboratory sessions were
conducted separately in English or Spanish with home
partners that had a history of interaction with the child
in the respective language. Analogous to previous vali-
dation efforts with these instruments, reported measures
of word production are compared to word use during both
free speech and structured contexts. Lexical measures
are evaluated with respect to each language taken indi-
vidually, as well as the degree to which a composite
measure is indicative of general lexical skill (e.g.,
Pearson & Fernndez, 1994). Reported grammar mea-
sures are compared to observations of the use of word
combinations, as well as a measure of their complexity,
MLU-words. Finally, we examine whether the validity
of these tools is affected by demographic factors and
986 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol. 45 983997 October 2002
sources of reporter bias that have particular relevance
to this population.
Method
Participants
Participants were 26 typically developing toddlers
(n = 13 girls and 13 boys; M = 27.8 months, range = 23 to
34 months) taken from a related study of language acqui-
sition in children who are learning both English and Span-
ish. Table 1 reports participant characteristics, including
age at test, sex, and aspects of the language-learning en-
vironments. Because these children were not
expected to be near ceiling levels in either language
(Fenson et al., 1993; Jackson-Maldonado et al., 2001), 8
children were slightly older than the recommended ages
of the CDI and IDHC for typically developing populations.
In order to ensure that children would demonstrate some
production abilities in each language, children were
exposed to each language for a minimum of 12 hours per
week through interactions with other people (i.e., not tele-
vision). Most children (85%) were exposed to both lan-
guages within 3 months of birth. Four children were
introduced to the second language at the age of 6 (n = 1),
12 (n = 2), and 15 (n = 1) months. These children demon-
strated vocabulary skills in both languages that were com-
parable to those of the other participants. All children
experienced both languages for at least 14 months before
their participation. No child was exposed to language(s)
other than English and Spanish.
Approximately one quarter (n = 7, 27%) of the chil-
dren were first-born, and half (n = 13, 50%) were sec-
ond. Children with major birth complications, extended
hospitalizations, developmental disabilities, and/or hear-
ing loss were excluded. Three children were reported to
have chronic otitis media (more than 5 episodes), and
two received intervention (P.E. tubes) at least one year
before participation. After participating, one child was
diagnosed with a speech-language delay and began
Table 1. Overview of participant characteristics, language learning environments, and reported vocabulary.
Language used by
Age in Home non-parental
Child Sex months Mother Father language
a,c
caregiver(s)
a
English Spanish English
e
Spanish
e
Composite
f
1 F 23 Mixed English English Mixed 61.5 38.5 424 116 443
2 M 23 Spanish Spanish Mixed Mixed 50.6 49.4 28 22 39
3 F 24 Mixed Spanish Mixed Spanish 5.0 95.0 116 268 324
4 F 24 Spanish English Spanish Spanish 14.8 85.2 98 103 182
5 M 24 Spanish English Mixed na 43.1 56.9 105 103 170
6 M 25 English English English Mixed 82.9 17.1 192 19 195
7 F 25 English Spanish Mixed English 59.9 40.1 164 84 211
8 F 25 Spanish Spanish Spanish na 46.0 54.0 46 47 78
9 M 26 Spanish Spanish Spanish na 21.9 78.1 37 192 211
10 M 26 English English English Mixed 85.1 14.9 236 76 262
11 F 26 English Spanish English English 90.3 9.7 324 6 323
12 M 26 Spanish Spanish Mixed English 42.8 57.2 24 30 47
13 F 27 Spanish Spanish Spanish na 24.3 75.7 33 120 146
14 M 29 Spanish Spanish Mixed na 65.7 34.3 242 81 260
15 F 29 Spanish Spanish Spanish English 11.8 88.2 77 52 113
16 F 30 Mixed Mixed Spanish English 11.3 88.7 255 629 663
17 M 30 Spanish English English na 90.0 10.0 427 4 416
18 F 30 Mixed Spanish English Mixed 69.2 30.8 368 119 385
19 M 31 English Spanish Mixed Spanish 49.3 50.7 205 31 219
20 M 31 English English Mixed Spanish 68.1 31.9 629 242 656
21 F 31 Spanish Spanish Spanish English 41.7 58.3 176 262 355
22 M 31 Spanish Spanish Mixed na 33.1 66.9 291 442 526
23 F 31 Spanish Spanish Spanish na 35.8 64.2 129 232 293
24 F 32 Spanish Spanish Mixed English 48.0 52.0 328 404 492
25 M 32 Spanish Spanish Mixed Spanish 37.6 62.4 356 165 407
26 M 34 English English English Spanish 80.5 19.5 422 97 444
Note.

na = not applicable.
a
Based on bilingual background interview.
b
What is your/your partners native language?
c
What is the primary language spoken in your home?
d
Proportion of total talk to child.
e
Total words reported on CDI and IDHC.
f
Total concepts reported in English Only + Spanish Only + Both English and
Spanish (see text).
Native language
a,b
Reported input to child
a,d
Reported vocabulary
Marchman & Martnez-Sussmann: Validity of Parent Report in English and Spanish 987
intervention services at a local clinic. All of the children
lived with both parents, and eight families had addi-
tional adults living in the home (e.g., grandmother).
Eighteen of the children experienced some regular
childcare either by a nonparent caregiver (n = 11) or at
a daycare center (n = 7).
The participants represented a range of socioeco-
nomic backgrounds, as indexed by maternal years of
education (e.g., graduation from high school = 12 years).
On average, mothers reported at least some college at-
tendance (M = 14.4, range = 6 to 18). All of the mothers
who were employed outside the home (n = 12, 46%) had
completed at least a high school education, and 4 had
completed a higher degree. Of the mothers who reported
their occupation as homemaker (n = 12, 46%), 5 had high
school degrees or less.
The majority of the children were born in the United
States (n = 25, 92%), although 65% (n = 17) of the fathers
and 54% (n = 14) of the mothers were born in other coun-
triesprimarily Mexico. Other families were from Cen-
tral America (n = 4), South America (n = 1), or Puerto
Rico (n = 1). The majority of mothers (n = 15, 57.7%) and
fathers (n = 17, 65.4%) were native Spanish speakers,
but 42% of the families reported that the home language
was a mix of both English and Spanish. The ethnicity of
most parents was reported to be Hispanic (n = 15, 58%),
with 27% of the sample reporting mixed ethnicities
(Anglo-Hispanic: n = 6, African AmericanHispanic: n =
1). In four cases, both parents reported Anglo-American
heritage, with the child experiencing Spanish-language
input from a nonparental caregiver. Whenever possible,
mothers completed a modified version of the Accultura-
tion Rating Scale for Mexican AmericansII (ARSMA-
II; Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995). Because some
families were from Central and South America, the word
Hispanic was substituted for Mexican on the question-
naire. Six of the mothers were reported as Very His-
panic Oriented, and 7 were Very Assimilated (Strongly
Anglo Oriented). The remaining mothers (n = 12, 52%)
were balanced in cultural orientation, suggesting iden-
tification with both the Hispanic and Anglo cultures.
Procedure
Participant Recruitment
Families were recruited on a volunteer basis through
local organizations, community events, and Spanish-
language radio and television stations. Bilingual re-
search assistants (RAs) contacted interested families via
telephone. During this interview, individuals (e.g., par-
ents, nannies) were identified as appropriate to partici-
pate on the basis of their consistency of contact with the
child over the previous 6 months, their willingness to
come to the university, and their ability to speak and
read English or Spanish.
Language-Learning Environment
One or both parents participated in a Bilingual
Background Interview (approximately 2030 min) ad-
ministered by a bilingual RA in the language most com-
fortable for the parent(s). Developed specifically for this
and related studies (Marchman, Martnez-Sussmann,
& Price, 2000), this interview was designed to provide a
comprehensive picture of the English and Spanish in-
put for each child. Parents indicated the preferred
language(s) of the home, as well as the language(s) they
used with each other and with the child (English, Span-
ish, or both). Parents then described the childs daily
schedule, including wake-up time, nap time, and bed-
time, separately for weekdays and weekends. For each
person with regular contact with the child, both in and
outside the home, parents were probed regarding how
many hours the child spent with that person per week
and what language(s) were spoken to the child (English,
Spanish, or both). When both languages were reported,
parents estimated the relative proportion of English and
Spanish used. Additional questions probed other rel-
evant factors (e.g., frequency of trips outside the United
States). In order to estimate the amount of input in each
language, the number of hours for each language was
summed across all sources (mother, father, grandpar-
ents, siblings [over 3 years of age], relatives, nonparent
caregivers, adult friends, and child friends [over 3 years
old]). This estimate was thus affected by the number of
individuals with whom the child was in regular contact.
In order to compare across individuals, proportion scores
were computed as the amount of Spanish, English, or
mixed input divided by total hours of talk. Mixed input
was added to the appropriate totals on the basis of re-
ported relative proportions of English to Spanish in that
context. Results indicated that the relative proportion
of English to Spanish was balanced on average (M =
45% English, 55% Spanish), although a given childs
environment ranged from 5% English (95% Spanish) to
90% English (10% Spanish).
Caregiver/Parent Report
One or more adults who were familiar with the
childs use of that language completed the CDI: Words
& Sentences and/or the IDHC: Palabras y Enunciados.
The forms were mailed to the families and returned at
the laboratory visits. During the contact phone call, the
forms were described and all instructions were reviewed
verbally. Reporters were specifically told to report spon-
taneous productions on the forms rather than elicited
repetitions or imitations. General instructions were also
summarized in a separate cover letter in both English
and Spanish (e.g., Words do not have to be pronounced
perfectly in order for the child to get credit for under-
stands & says; Marque las palabras pronunciadas de
988 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol. 45 983997 October 2002
diferente manera [ej. pato en vez de zapato]). Care was
taken to remind reporters that dialectical variants or
other words could be substituted for words on the form.
The printed instructions on the questionnaires were
marked with a highlighter so that participants would
be more likely to notice and read them. A preprinted
label was added to the front page of each form instruct-
ing reporters to indicate who filled out the form (Please
mark with an X to indicate who helped fill out this form:
Mother, Father, Others [please indicate]; Por favor
marque con una X quienes ayudaron a llenar esta forma:
mam, pap, otros [por favor, especifique]). In 10 cases
(38.5%), more than one person filled out one or both
forms. In more than half of the cases (n = 15, 57.7%),
different individual(s) completed the CDI and IDHC.
Mothers did not participate in filling out the forms for 7
of the IDHCs and 4 of the CDIs. Upon receipt, the forms
were examined following general guidelines to ensure
their completeness (i.e., no blank pages). Apparent in-
consistencies were noted and clarified or corrected over
the phone as soon as possible after receipt.
On the Vocabulary Checklist of both the CDI and
IDHC, total vocabulary size is computed as the total
number of words (out of 680) reported as understands
and says (comprende y dice). These checklists cap-
ture whether or not a child knows a particular word in
English and/or Spanish, without regard to the context
in which it is produced or the way it is pronounced. To-
tal scores provide general indications of the size of ex-
pressive vocabularies in English and Spanish. In addi-
tion to the CDI and IDHC taken individually, a composite
vocabulary score was also computed. Using Pearson
(1992) as a basis, each item on the CDI and IDHC was
matched if it reflected the same general child-based con-
cept (e.g., dog = perro). Each match was evaluated by a
team of native Spanish-speaking RAs in conjunction with
the first author and other CDI Advisory Board mem-
bers. Because the CDI and IDHC are not direct transla-
tions, a single concept may be represented by more than
one item on the CDI but only one item on the IDHC, and
vice versa. For example, the clock/watch concept is rep-
resented by two items (clock and watch) on the CDI, but
because there is no lexical distinction between clock and
watch in Spanish, this concept is represented by only
one item (reloj) on the IDHC. In other cases, a given con-
cept is represented in only one of the languages (e.g.,
the tortilla concept is matched to an item on the IDHC,
but not the CDI). Finally, a single concept may be
matched to more than one item on each form (e.g., in-
side/in and adentro/en). A total of 804 concepts were
derived, representing the number of ideas indexed by
the CDI and IDHC taken together. (A list of the matches
is available from http://www.utdallas.edu/~vamarch.)
Using an automated scoring program (Marchman,
1999), total conceptual vocabulary was calculated as the
sum of the number of concepts reported in English only
(e.g., the child is reported to produce dog but not perro),
Spanish only (e.g., the child is reported to produce gato
but not cat), and both English and Spanish (e.g., the
child is reported to produce both shoe and zapato). This
score is not the sum of the CDI and IDHC totals; a child
receives credit for only one concept when equivalent
words are reported in both languages. The score yields
a general index of lexical production, in terms of the
number of concepts expressed, regardless of the language
used to express them.
On both the CDI and IDHC, progress in grammar
is measured in two ways. First, reporters provide ex-
amples of three longest utterances that you have heard
your child say recently (Por favor, escriba tres ejemplos
de las frases ms largas que recuerde que su hijo haya
dicho ltimamente). Length of utterance is typically
computed in morphemes for English child language data;
however, length in words is more common in studies of
Romance languages because of the difficulties of estab-
lishing criteria for counting morphemes in morphologi-
cally rich languages (e.g., Gutierrez-Clellen, 1996).
Therefore, M3L for both languages was computed in
words, rather than morphemes, following standard con-
ventions. Children who were reported to not yet com-
bine words were assigned an M3L score of 1.0.
A second index of grammar was derived from re-
sponses on two analogous recognition format Grammati-
cal Complexity sections. Reporters indicate which of a
pair of phrases sounds more like what your child is say-
ing right now (la que ms se parezca a la forma como
habla su hijo, en este momento). The first option is an
example utterance that lacks grammatical markers or
is syntactically simple, whereas the second provides a
more grammatically complex alternative (e.g., Kitty sleep
vs. Kitty sleeping; Paloma llorando vs. Paloma est
llorando). A childs complexity score is the number of
times the second (i.e., more complex) of the example sen-
tences was chosen (37 maximum). Recall that the items
reflect grammatical constructs that are particularly rel-
evant for English or Spanish acquisition. (See Fenson
et al., 1993 and Jackson-Maldonado et al., 2001 for more
detail regarding the specific items.)
Laboratory Sessions
Language assessments were conducted using two
parallel behavioral protocols, one in English and one
in Spanish, with a bilingual RA and an adult who was
comfortable conversing in the language-of-the-day.
Participants were informed of the language-of-the-day
at the time of scheduling and were reminded when
greeted in the parking lot (Remember, today we will be
speaking English only, Hoy vamos a hablar solamente
en espaol). Sessions typically lasted less than one hour
Marchman & Martnez-Sussmann: Validity of Parent Report in English and Spanish 989
and were generally conducted 1 to 2 weeks apart. In all
cases, reporters updated the CDI and IDHC at the re-
spective sessions. Session order was counterbalanced.
At least 30 minutes of free-play was conducted with
the adult (15 minutes) and RA (15 minutes). RAs were
fully proficient in English and Spanish and were spe-
cifically trained to be sensitive to cultural variations in
child-adult interaction and parenting styles. RAs spoke
to the child and family members only in the language-
of-the-day. Before beginning the session, RAs talked with
the child and adult(s) for several minutes to establish
the context for an informal, family-like interaction (e.g.,
use of familiar register). Following Thal et al. (2000),
two parallel sets of toys provided a range of symbolic
and social-interactive activities. RAs assured the adults
that the child should feel comfortable playing with the
toys as if they were their own. A different RA partici-
pated in each session. Sessions were audio- and video-
taped and transcribed later.
Object naming in a structured setting was assessed
using a task adapted from Thal et al. (2000). Seated at
a table, the RA pulled out real objects from a bag, one
at a time, showed the object (Look!, Mira!) and then
handed it to the child. If the child spontaneously named
the object, the RA took back the object and pulled out
another toy. If a label was not spontaneously provided
after about 20 seconds, the RA asked the child to do so
(Whats this?, Qu es esto?). If the child named the
object in the non-language-of-the-day (e.g., Whats
this? Avin!), the RA prompted with Yes, but is there
another word for this? After two prompts, the RA
moved on to the next item. Three practice items were
administered.
A total of 15 common objects were used, eight of
which were taken directly from Thal et al. (2000). Two
(of the original 10) objects used by Thal et al. (2000)
were eliminated because their common names had pho-
nological overlap in English and Spanish (car/carro
and flower/flor). In these cases, it would be difficult
to determine whether a label produced by the child
matched the language-of-the-day. Seven new objects
were selected on the basis of the likelihood that they
were familiar to children in this age range and on the
phonological distinctiveness of the English and Span-
ish labels. All objects had everyday names listed on the
CDI and IDHC. As shown in Table 2, all English labels
were reported to be produced by at least 50% of 24-
month-olds in the CDI norming study (Dale & Fenson,
1996). Item frequencies for the IDHC were not avail-
able when the task was developed, but are provided in
Table 2 for comparison (Jackson-Maldonado et al., 2001).
Some target names have comparable frequencies in
English and Spanish, but others were less likely to be
reported for Spanish- than English-speaking toddlers
(e.g., hat vs. sombrero).
Transcription and Data Reduction
Language samples were transcribed using standard
protocols by trained bilingual RAs (MacWhinney &
Snow, 1985). Transcripts contained approximately 100
fully intelligible utterances (or as many utterances as
Table 2. Proportion of children reported to produce target items based on the norming of the CDI and
IDHC.
English CDI
a
Spanish IDHC
b
Item 24 months 28 months Item 24 months 28 months
Airplane 78 93 Avin 71 77
Balloon 86 95 Globo 77 80
Bed 78 95 Cama 71 87
Book 90 97 Libro 41 67
Comb 50 74 Peine 52 67
Cup 79 93 Taza 49 66
Dog 92 98 Perro 85 86
Doll 75 88 Mueca 63 75
Duck 88 98 Pato 68 73
Egg 66 81 Huevo 81 85
Frog 64 85 Rana 32 50
Hat 78 93 Sombrero 32 51
Horse 82 93 Caballo 73 80
Shoe 91 97 Zapato 92 88
Spoon 77 91 Cuchara 73 80
M 78.3 91.4 M 64.0 74.1
a
As reported in the LEX database (Dale & Fenson, 1996).
b
Based on Jackson-Maldonado et al. (2001).
990 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol. 45 983997 October 2002
the child produced) based on a minimum of 24 min of
free-play (12 min with RA, 12 min with adult). The total
number of child utterances ranged from 35 to 271 in the
English (M = 124.6, SD = 25.0) and from 36 to 250 in
the Spanish (M = 115.6, SD = 49.8) sessions. After tran-
scription, all child utterances were evaluated as English,
Spanish, or a mix of both languages. The total number
of single-language child utterances ranged from 35 to
228 for the English (M = 107.0, SD = 53.9) and from 3 to
203 for the Spanish (M = 82.9, SD = 49.5) sessions. A
total of 102 additional child utterances were identified
as mixed (e.g., Mama I need agua, Hay nios in here).
Mixed utterances were observed in 13 English and 17
Spanish sessions, with at least one mixed utterance pro-
duced by 20 (of the 26) children.
Four children had too few utterances in the lan-
guage-of-the-day (3, 14, 23, and 31 in the Spanish ses-
sion; 35 in the English session) to allow stable estimates
of their production abilities. Thus, language sample
analyses were based on 22 Spanish-language sessions
(M = 98.1, SD = 44.2, 46 to 205 total utterances) and 25
English-language sessions (M = 112.1, SD = 54.5, 45 to
228 total utterances). Lexical and grammatical indices
in the language-of-the-day were derived using the Child
Language Analysis System (MacWhinney & Snow, 1990):
(a) Number of Different Words (NDW), (b) Total Num-
ber of Words (TW), and (c) Mean Length of Utterance
(MLU-words).

Mixed utterances were excluded from the
computation of MLU-words. However, identifiable words
in the language-of-the-day in mixed utterances were
included in NDW and TW.
Reliability estimates for transcription were obtained
by comparing the independent transcriptions for a ran-
domly selected subsample of the English (5 of 25) and
Spanish (5 of 22) sessions. Reliability was computed as
the number of matches out of the total number of oppor-
tunities for agreement per transcript. Before resolving
discrepancies, reliability coefficients were 88.9% for the
English session (range = 74.2% to 100%) and 97.6% for
the Spanish session (range = 94.9% to 100%). The RAs
reviewed the transcripts and videorecordings and sought
to obtain a consensus for all discrepancies. A third coder
resolved any remaining disagreements.
All responses on the naming task were transcribed
independently by two RAs from the audio- and video-
recordings. A child was credited for naming the object in
the language-of-the-day if his or her response approxi-
mated the target name in English or Spanish at the ap-
propriate session. Names in the nontarget language were
also noted. Only spontaneous or prompted responses
were coded; credit was not given for imitations. Syn-
onyms or equivalent names (e.g., mona for mueca) were
acceptable. In some cases, parents/caregivers confirmed
that the label produced was used by the child to refer to
that object in other contexts. Sound effects were ac-
cepted only if produced in a naming context (e.g., look-
ing at a dog while saying thats woof-woof). Reliability
estimates were derived by comparing each independently
prepared transcription and coding sheet, yielding 363
agreements (of 390 possible) for the Spanish session and
360 agreements (of 390 possible) for the English sessions.
The average percent agreement across session was 93%
(range = 73% to 100%). The two RAs reviewed each dis-
agreement together and obtained consensus whenever
possible. All remaining disagreements were resolved by
the first author. Two naming scores were obtained: (1)
total objects named in the language-of-the-day, and (2)
total objects named (regardless of language).
Results
Caregiver/Parent Report and
Laboratory Measures of Vocabulary
Table 1 presents reported English, Spanish, and
Composite vocabulary scores for each child, and Table 3
presents descriptive statistics (mean, standard devia-
tion, and range) for the same measures. All children were
reported to produce at least a few words in both English
and Spanish, although there was considerable individual
variation that is typical of children at this age. The
majority of the children (n = 16, 61%) had at least 50
reported words in each language, and only three
younger children (23, 25, and 26 months) had fewer
than 50 reported words in both English and Spanish.
Composite scores indicated that only two children were
reported to express fewer than 50 concepts when both
languages were taken into account. (One of these chil-
dren began to receive services from a speech-language
pathologist at 27 months old.) Thus, the majority of
the children were demonstrating progress in vocabu-
lary that was generally appropriate for their age. Fur-
ther, size of reported vocabularies was significantly
correlated with the proportion of English (r = .56, p <
.003) and Spanish (r = .49, p < .05) input. Consistent
with previous studies, proportion of English to Span-
ish talk was a good predictor of the number of words
learned in each language (e.g., Pearson, Fernndez,
Lewedeg, & Oller, 1997).
Table 3 also presents descriptive statistics for the
structured and free-play behavioral measures of vocabu-
lary. Results indicate that children provided an object
label in the target language in approximately 25% to 45%
of the opportunities (15 maximum) in each session. These
results are somewhat lower than those reported in Thal
et al. (2000), where monolingual Spanish-speaking chil-
dren named approximately 50% to 80% of the objects. At
the same time, most children named at least a few of
Marchman & Martnez-Sussmann: Validity of Parent Report in English and Spanish 991
the objects in both the English and Spanish sessions.
The results also suggest that, at least some of the time,
naming behavior did not match the language-of-the-day.
Although it is impossible to know what language was
intended, children sometimes provided a label that more
closely approximated the target in Spanish during the
English session or vice versa. (Recall that labels had
minimal phonological overlap, although it was impos-
sible to control for overlap between legitimate alterna-
tives; e.g., puppy and perro.) A 2 ! 2 multivariate analy-
sis of variance with target language (language-of-the-day
vs. any language) and session (English vs. Spanish) as
within-subjects variables indicated a significant main
effect of target language [F(1, 25) = 52.2, p < .001] and a
target-language-by-session interaction [F(1, 25) = 6.6,
p < .02]. That is, children named more objects in any
language than they did in the target language, espe-
cially in the Spanish sessions. It was not the case that
children were doing less naming in the Spanish than in
the English session, as the main effect of session was
not significant. Thus, children were naming about the
same number of objects in both sessions, but they were
more likely to do so in English than in Spanish, regard-
less of session.
As also shown in Table 3, the behavioral measures
of NDW and TW were within the same range as those
reported previously for monolingual children (Thal et
al., 2000). At the same time, there was considerable in-
dividual variation in these indices of lexical development
that is characteristic of this developmental period.
Caregiver/Parent Report and
Laboratory Measures of Grammar
Table 4 presents descriptive statistics for two indi-
ces of grammar from the CDI and IDHC (Complexity
and M3L-words) and one from the language samples
(MLU-words). Results indicated a wide range of gram-
matical abilities in all three measures. Complexity scores
spanned the full range for English and Spanish (37
maximum), and M3L values ranged from not yet pro-
ducing word combinations to 712 word sentences. In
addition, MLU-word scores indicated that these children
were producing primarily single-word utterances and
some multiword combinations in both languages. All
children (with scorable language samples) produced at
least one multiword combination in each language. Thus,
in general, these children were demonstrating progress
in the acquisition of grammar in both languages.
Correlation Between Parent Report
and Behavioral Measures of
Vocabulary and Grammar
Table 5 presents correlations between CDI/IDHC
reported and behavioral measures of vocabulary. Both
English and Spanish reported vocabulary scores were
significantly correlated with number of objects named
in the corresponding language session. At the same time,
reported vocabulary size in English did not significantly
predict number of objects named in Spanish, and
Table 3. Descriptive statistics for caregiver/parent report, structured naming, and behavioral measures of
vocabulary.
M (SD) Range
Caregiver/parent report
English reported words produced (CDI) 220.5 (156.3) 24629
Spanish reported words produced (IDHC) 151.8 (151.3) 4629
Composite CDI/IDHC
a
302.3 (171.1) 39663
Naming task
b
Objects Named in English (English session) 6.7 (5.0) 014
Objects named in any language (English session) 8.2 (5.0) 015
Objects named in Spanish (Spanish session) 3.8 (4.4) 015
Objects named in any language (Spanish session) 8.1 (4.5) 015
Language samples
NDW
c
in English 80.1 (39.7) 25169
TW
d
in English 211.0 (134.2) 55504
NDW
c
in Spanish 66.6 (36.7) 7162
TW
d
in Spanish 171.0 (120.7) 57468
a
Number of concepts reported in English Only + Spanish Only + Both English and Spanish (adapted from
Pearson, 1992).
b
Maximum = 15.
c
NDW = Number of different words produced in the target language during
24-min language sample.
d
TW = Total number of words produced in the target language during 24-min
language sample.
992 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol. 45 983997 October 2002
reported vocabulary in Spanish was not significantly re-
lated to laboratory naming in English. In addition, size
of vocabulary in English was significantly correlated
with both NDW and TW in the English but not the Span-
ish sessions. Conversely, reported vocabulary in Span-
ish was significantly correlated with Spanish, but not
English, word production. These relationships remained
consistent when age was partialed out, as shown by the
second number in each pair. Indeed, all correlations
between vocabulary and age of child were low and non-
significant. Note that the strength of correlations be-
tween caregiver/parent report and the two types of be-
havioral measures, NDW/TW and naming, are quite
comparable. Thus, the CDI and IDHC appear to be good
predictors of lexical skill in both spontaneous and struc-
tured contexts.
Table 5 also shows that Composite Vocabulary was
significantly positively correlated with naming in the
English sessions, with positive but weaker relationships
in the Spanish sessions. More significantly, composite
vocabulary was more strongly related to naming behav-
ior in general, as indexed by the number of objects named
in any language, than to either of the individual nam-
ing scores. Note also that composite vocabulary was
modestly correlated with NDW and TW in both language
sessions. These data suggest that a score representing
Table 4. Descriptive statistics for caregiver/parent report and behavioral measures of grammar.
M (SD) Range
Caregiver/parent report
English CDI
Grammatical complexity
a
8.2 (10.0) 036
M3L-words
b
3.6 (2.2) 1.07.3
Spanish IDHC
Grammatical complexity
a
6.0 (10.8) 037
M3L-words
b
3.3 (2.4) 1.012.0
Language samples
English session (n = 25)
MLU-words in English
c
1.8 (.52) 1.13.1
Spanish session (n = 22)
MLU-words in Spanish
c
1.6 (.45) 1.12.9
a
Number of times the reporter chose the second, more complex sentence of the pair (37 maximum).
b
Mean length
(in words) of the three longest utterances reported by the parent/caregiver.
c
Mean length of utterance (in words)
based on 24-min language sample.
Table 5. Pearson correlation coefficients for caregiver/parent report and behavioral measures of vocabulary.
Caregiver/parent report
English CDI Spanish IDHC Composite
Objects named
English (English session) .72**/.73** .08/.18 .50**/.48*
Any language (English session) .67**/.63** .21/.11 .63**/.59**
Spanish (Spanish session) .19/.35 .78**/.77** .33/.27
Any language (Spanish session) .32/.14 .46*/.36 .54**/.41*
Language samples
NDW
a
English .79**/.77** .09/.24 .53**/.45*
TW
b
English .63**/.56** .03/.18 .46*/.35
NDW
a
Spanish .41/.34 .60**/.56** .64**/.60**
TW
b
Spanish .41/.40 .58**/.61** .64**/.69**
Note. Second value in each pair is the correlation with age partialed out.
a
NDW = Number of different words produced during 24-min language sample.
b
TW = Total number of words
produced during 24-min language sample.
*p < .05, ** p < .01
Marchman & Martnez-Sussmann: Validity of Parent Report in English and Spanish 993
vocabulary skill in terms of a composite of both lan-
guages can serve as a predictor of a bilingual childs word
use in general.
Next, we examine the concordance between reported
and behavioral measures of grammar. Some children
were reported as not yet producing combinations (M3L-
words = 1.0; n = 7 in English, n = 3 in Spanish); how-
ever, all children with usable language samples produced
at least one multiword utterance. Thus, reporters were
only 72% accurate in English and 86% accurate in Span-
ish, with all nonconcordances underestimating abilities.
Table 6 presents first-order and partial correlations be-
tween reported M3L-words and complexity and observed
MLU-words for each language. Within-language corre-
lations are moderate to strong, whereas cross-language
correlations are weaker and nonsignificant. A similar
pattern is seen when age is partialed out, suggesting
that the results are not confounded by developmental
effects. Thus, although reporters were somewhat inac-
curate at predicting whether or not a child produces word
combinations, the correlation between the full-scale
grammar measures are comparable to, but slightly lower
than, those reported for monolingual children (Dale,
1991; Thal et al., 2000).
Factors Affecting Validity
In order to evaluate the robustness of the validity
of these instruments in the population, we examined
correlations between reported and observed language
measures after controlling for various input and demo-
graphic factors. Results indicated that correlations re-
mained consistently strong (all p < .05) between reported
vocabulary size and laboratory naming after the follow-
ing factors were taken into account: Home Language
(English: r = .69, Spanish r = .77), Proportion of En-
glish-to-Spanish input (English: r = .69, Spanish: r =
.73), Mothers Years of Education (English: r = .66, Span-
ish: r = .82), Mothers Acculturation Level (English: r =
.53, Spanish: r = .76). Similar findings were observed
for grammar, but again the strengths of the relation-
ships were somewhat lower. Correlations between re-
ported complexity and observed MLU all remained sig-
nificant after accounting for Home Language (English:
r = .68, Spanish r = .65), English-to-Spanish input (En-
glish: r = .63, Spanish: r = .70), Mothers Education (En-
glish: r = .62, Spanish: r = .65), and Mothers Accultura-
tion Level (English: r = .61, Spanish: r = .63).
Next, we examine the impact of multiple reporters
on the validity levels observed here. We contrast corre-
lations between reported vocabulary and scores on the
structured naming task in cases where single versus
multiple individuals (7 cases for the CDI and 7 for the
IDHC) completed each form. Correlations remained
strong in both the single- and multiple-reporter groups
(rs = .84 and .75) for the CDI. For the IDHC, correla-
tions were higher for the multiple- (r = .97) than the
single-reporter group (r = .59); although both correla-
tions were statistically reliable (p < .05). For the gram-
mar measures, correlations were consistently stronger
in the multiple-reporter (rs = .93 and .61) than the single-
reporter group (rs = .39 and .50) for both the CDI and
IDHC. Although these results should be interpreted with
caution given the disproportionate sample sizes, the re-
sults suggest that multiple reporters can provide a view
of lexical and grammatical development that is as good
as, and sometimes better than, a single reporter.
Finally, we contrast correlations in those children
for whom there was overlap in the reporters across the
CDI and IDHC (n = 15) versus those for whom a com-
pletely different individual or set of individuals filled
out each form (n = 11). The results indicated only minor
impact on validity for the lexical measures. Although
the correlation between English reported vocabulary and
laboratory naming was slightly lower in the non-
overlapping group (r = .51) than the overlapping group
(r = .84), it was within an acceptable range. Further,
correlations between reported and observed lexical mea-
sures for Spanish were consistently high in both the
overlap and nonoverlapping groups (rs = .71 and 75,
Table 6. Pearson correlation coefficients for caregiver/parent report and behavioral measures of grammar.
Caregiver/parent report
English CDI Spanish IDHC
Behavioral measures Complexity M3L
b
Complexity M3L
b
MLU-words in English
a
.64**/.62** .53*/.46* .17/.07 .16/.08
MLU-words in Spanish
a
.39/.35 .17./-.01 .66**/.60** .71**/.66**
Note. Second value in each pair is the correlation with age partialed out.
a
Mean length of utterance in words based on 24-min of language sample.
b
Mean length (in words) of the three
longest utterances reported by the caregiver/parent.
*p < .05, ** p < .01
994 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol. 45 983997 October 2002
respectively). These results suggest that reporters were
able to accurately discriminate childrens English and
Spanish word use when completing the CDI and IDHC,
even if they were speakers of both English and Spanish
themselves. A contrasting picture emerges for grammar.
Looking at those 22 children for whom useable language
samples were available for both languages, complexity
scores from the CDI were strongly correlated with ob-
served MLU in those children for whom different re-
porters completed the CDI and IDHC (r = .70), but less
so in those children with the same reporters for both
forms (r = .40). For Spanish, in contrast, the correlation
between reported complexity and observed MLU was
strong for the overlap group (r = .75) but weak for the
nonoverlap group (r = .12). Thus, consistent with the
fact that the grammar correlations were somewhat lower
overall, these findings suggest that reported grammar
may be less robust than reported word production in
certain learning contexts.
Discussion
The goal of this study was to evaluate the ability of
caregiver/parent report to provide valid estimates of
vocabulary and grammar in young children who are
learning both English and Spanish. The ease of admin-
istration of caregiver/parent report makes it an attrac-
tive alternative to more time-consuming methods of lan-
guage assessment for both reporters and researchers/
clinicians. The relationships between the reported and
behavioral measures were consistently strong for both
structured and spontaneous measures of word produc-
tion. Although the correlations for the grammar mea-
sures were somewhat lower in general, the overall cor-
relations were well within the ranges reported by other
studies. In general, the results suggest that the CDI and
IDHC do provide valid information regarding a variety
of burgeoning lexical and grammatical skills in English-
and Spanish-speaking toddlers.
Although there are advantages to a single instru-
ment that provides an overview of a bilingual childs
development, the combined use of the CDI and IDHC
enables the assessment of a similar but not identical
set of language-specific skills in English and Spanish.
At the same time, the parallel format allows the compu-
tation of a general index of vocabulary knowledge, inde-
pendent of the language preferences of a particular child.
The consistently strong correlations observed between
general naming performance and composite vocabulary
totals underscores the potential importance of instru-
ments that productively integrate vocabulary skills in
both languages (Pearson et al., 1993; Pearson &
Fernndez, 1994; Umbel, Pearson, Fernndez, & Oller,
1992).
The use of the CDI and IDHC with bilingual tod-
dlers raises several important issues regarding the na-
ture of assessments in this population. Almost half of
the children in this study lived in homes in which a mix
of English and Spanish was regularly used; however,
there was considerable variation in the overall propor-
tion of English to Spanish input. Mothers represented a
range of educational levels, including some with less
than high school educations. Many mothers considered
themselves to be strongly acculturated into the Anglo
culture, but others were much less so. Several recent
studies have advised caution when using these instru-
ments with populations with ethnic, educational, or lit-
eracy levels that may be different from those in the origi-
nal norming samples (Feldman et al., 2000; Fenson et
al., 2000). It is noteworthy that the current study dem-
onstrated strong concurrent validity after several de-
mographic factors were taken into account. At the same
time, all of the families were two-parent households with
employed fathers. Further, the mothers with less than
high school educations represented only a small portion
of the total sample (approximately 20%). Thus, although
the current findings suggest that the CDI and IDHC
are robust across a range of contexts, a study that as-
sesses their validity in primarily low-income or low-
educated bilingual families remains an imperative next
step.
Regardless of the particular situation, procedures
sought to ensure that all respondents were not only will-
ing but capable of completing the CDI and/or IDHC.
Participants were queried about their own level of skill
in each language and their familiarity with the childs
use of English and Spanish. Different individuals some-
times completed the two forms, and more than one re-
porter was used, especially when the child was in regu-
lar contact with different caregivers. In all cases, general
instructions for completing the CDI and IDHC were
overviewed and clarified both in writing and over the
phone. Finally, forms were reviewed upon receipt for in-
ternal consistency and completeness. This protocol clearly
goes beyond a mail only procedure and, hence, differs
from that used in the norming of the CDI. However, these
procedures are comparable to those applied in the
norming and validation of the Spanish IDHC (Jackson-
Maldonado et al., 2001; Thal et al., 2000). The decision
to encourage multiple reporters, as well as different re-
porters across forms, was necessitated by the fact that
our children experienced multiple sources of input both
in and outside the home. Although these procedures
could be seen to undermine the ease of use of the tech-
nique, in our view these steps were commonsense, easy-
to-implement procedures that were particularly relevant
for families with varied language-use patterns, ethnic
backgrounds, literacy levels, and cultural expectations.
Marchman & Martnez-Sussmann: Validity of Parent Report in English and Spanish 995
Analyses of reporter conditions indicated that the
use of multiple reporters had little impact and, in some
cases, improved the accuracy of the reports of both lexi-
cal and grammatical abilities. Thus, researchers and cli-
nicians may find it beneficial to adopt the protocol used
herein particular, the participation of multiple report-
ers. The comparison of overlapping versus nonoverlapping
reporters indicated that participants were able to accu-
rately report on English and Spanish word use, even
when they completed both the CDI and IDHC and when
the child may be demonstrating different levels of skill
in each language. The findings were less consistent for
grammar, suggesting a vulnerability of the technique
that has not been seen in previous studies.
Recall that reporters generally had more difficulty
with grammar than word production. They were only
moderately accurate in reporting word combinations,
and relationships between reported and observed gram-
mar were slightly lower overall and broke down under
certain reporter conditions. These results were unex-
pected given the perfect concordance between reported
and observed use of word combinations seen by Patterson
(2000) and the strong correlations between observed
MLU and complexity in studies of monolingual children
(e.g., Dale, 1991; Thal et al., 2000). One possible expla-
nation for this discrepancy rests on the fact that although
most of our children were well beyond 50-word vocabu-
laries in each language, many were just beginning to
transition from single-word to multiword speech. The
children for whom reporters underestimated the ability
to produce combinations were significantly younger, had
fewer reported words, and produced fewer and shorter
utterances during the sessions than those who were re-
ported to produce combinations. In comparing overlap-
ping and nonoverlapping reporters, reporters may have
been more accurate in Spanish in the overlap group be-
cause these children were generally more advanced in
Spanish grammatical skills and were approximately 4
months older, on average, than the children in the
nonoverlap group. Correlations remained strong for
English in the nonoverlap group because many of these
children had English as the primary home language and
were generally producing more complex English sen-
tences. Such conclusions are preliminary, of course, but
it is possible that the transitional status of our children
affected the accuracy of reported grammar. Further re-
search with children who are demonstrating greater
grammatical proficiency is needed to further explore this
possibility.
Because we were interested in obtaining the childs
best level of skill in a given language, the behavioral
sessions were structured in terms of a language-of-
the-day. Perhaps not surprisingly, the children (and
sometimes the caregivers) did not always adhere to this
expectation. That is, children spoke Spanish during the
English session and vice versa, even though several steps
were taken to mark the language of the session (e.g.,
the presence of different RAs at each session who never
code-switched, requesting that caregivers speak only one
language). Many of these occurred in the context of a
single utterance, reflecting the natural tendency for in-
tra-utterance mixing of the languages (i.e., code-switch-
ing or code-mixing) that is frequently observed in profi-
cient bilingual adults as well as in children learning two
languages (e.g., Nicoladis & Genesee, 1997). More in-
depth analyses are required to determine whether this
mixing reflected childrens inability to differentiate the
lexicons of the two languages, their personal experience
with frequent language mixing, the characteristics of
the particular interlocutors, and/or the childs level of
proficiency in each language (e.g., Genesee, Nicoladis,
& Paradis, 1995; Nicoladis & Genesee, 1998; Pearson et
al., 1995; Quay, 1995).
However, there is some suggestion that the task or
interactional context may have influenced this tendency.
Recall that children were generally more likely to use
English rather than Spanish labels during the naming
task. Recall also from Table 1 that the names for some
objects were less likely to be reported in the production
vocabularies of children in the Spanish than the English
norming samples. Thus, it is possible that these children
were using more English names because the English la-
bels were more familiar to them than the Spanish ones.
Future studies should take advantage of the availability
of item frequency data from the norming of the CDI and
IDHC to develop tasks that are more evenly matched in
frequency across the two languages. In addition, this
phenomenon reinforces the notion that assessment tech-
niques may be differentially affected by performance fac-
tors, such as word frequency. Future studies should sys-
tematically explore the degree to which caregiver/parent
report and behavioral assessments can be productively
used in conjunction to capture both what children know
and what they are likely to use.
Regardless of the demonstrated success of the CDI
and IDHC in providing valid assessments for English-
and Spanish-speaking children, caution and common-
sense must be applied when using these tools in par-
ticular cases and for particular purposes. Comprehen-
sive assessments of early language skills require
consideration of abilities in English and Spanish, in both
languages via composite protocols, across settings with
input from a variety of sources, and through various
assessment types. Further, research and clinical prac-
tice will no doubt also benefit from normative informa-
tion that is specifically based on and applied to children
with these particular language experiences (i.e., those
who are learning both English and Spanish). In addi-
tion, work is currently underway to develop short forms
of the IDHC instruments that we anticipate will be
996 Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research Vol. 45 983997 October 2002
productively used in conjunction with the current En-
glish short forms (e.g., Fenson et al., 2000). Although there
are advantages to the use of the full-scale forms in many
settings, short forms may be more appropriate for some
screening and research purposes. In general, the current
demonstration that the CDI and IDHC are valid for chil-
dren who are learning both English and Spanish is an
important step forward in ensuring that this segment
of the population is not underserved nor under-
represented in future clinical and research endeavors.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by grants from the Texas
Higher Education Coordinating Board (TARP), The Callier
Center for Communication Disorders, and the School of
Human Development at the University of Texas at Dallas. A
preliminary version of these data were presented at the
biennial meeting of the Society for Research in Child Develop-
ment, Minneapolis, MN (April 2001). We would like to thank
the members of the CDI Advisory Board, especially Donna J.
Thal and Donna Jackson-Maldonado, for their input and
support. We would also like to thank Barbara Pearson for
sharing her original matches (Pearson, 1992). We offer our
sincere appreciation to Leo Bobadilla, Luis Cazares, Amber
Cheney, Tania Cohen, Heather Eaton, Diana Garza,
Guadalupe Gonzalez, Elda Jimenez, Laura Smithson, Socorro
Terlizzi, as well as the families who participated in our study.
References
Arriaga, R., Fenson, L., Cronan, T., & Pethick, S. (1998).
Scores on the MacArthur Communication Development
Inventory of children from low- and middle-income
families. Applied Psycholinguistics, 19, 209223.
Bates, E., Bretherton, B., & Snyder, L. (1988). From first
words to grammar: Individual differences and dissociable
mechanisms. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Cuellar, I., Arnold, B., & Maldonado, R. (1995). Accul-
turation rating scale for Mexican AmericansII: A revision
of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behav-
ioral Sciences, 13, 275303.
Dale, P. S. (1991). The validity of parent report measure of
vocabulary and syntax at 24 months. Journal of Speech
and Hearing Research, 34, 565571.
Dale, P. S., Bates, E., Reznick, J. S., & Morriset, C.
(1989). The validity of parent report instrument of child
language at 20 months. Journal of Child Language, 16,
239250.
Dale, P. S., & Fenson, L. (1996). Lexical development
norms for young children. Behavior Research Methods,
Instruments, & Computers, 28, 125127.
Feldman, H. M., Dollaghan, C. A., Campbell, T. F., Kurs-
Lasky, M., Janosky, J. E., & Paradise, J. L. (2000).
Measurement properties of the MacArthur Communica-
tive Development Inventories. Child Development, 71,
310322.
Fenson, L., Bates, E., Dale, P., Goodman, J., Reznick, J.
S., & Thal, D. (2000). Measuring variability in early child
language: Dont shoot the messenger. A response to
Feldman et al. Child Development, 71, 323328.
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal,
D., & Pethick, S. J. (1994). Variability in early communi-
cative development. Monographs of the Society for
Research in Child Development, Serial No. 242, 59(5),
1173.
Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, S., Thal, D., Bates, E.,
Hartung, J., et al. (1993). The MacArthur Communica-
tive Development Inventories: Users guide and technical
manual. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group.
Fenson, L., Pethick, S., Renda, C., Cox, J., Dale, P. S., &
Reznick, J. S. (2000). Short-form versions of the
MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories.
Applied Psycholinguistics, 21, 995115.
Genesee, F., Nicoladis, E., & Paradis, J. (1995). Lan-
guage differentiation in early bilingual development.
Journal of Child Language, 22, 611632.
Gutierrez-Clellen, V. (1996). Language diversity: Implica-
tions for assessment. In K. N. Cole, P. S. Dale, & D. J.
Thal (Eds.), Assessment of communication and language
(pp. 2956). Baltimore: P. H. Brookes.
Hedrick D. L., Prather, E. M., & Tobin, A. R. (1984).
Sequenced Inventory of Communicative Development
(Translation from Spanish by L. Rosenberg). Seattle:
University of Washington Press.
Jackson-Maldonado, D., Bates, E., & Thal, D. (1992).
Fundacin MacArthur: Inventario del desarrollo de
habilidades comunicativas. San Diego, CA: San Diego
State University.
Jackson-Maldonado, D., Thal, D., Marchman, V., Bates,
E., & Gutierrez-Clellen, V. (1993). Early lexical acquisi-
tion in Spanish-speaking infants and toddlers. Journal of
Child Language, 20, 523549.
Jackson-Maldonado, D., Thal, D. J., Marchman, V.,
Newton, T., Fenson, L., & Conboy, B. (2001). El
Inventario del Desarrollo de Habilidades Comunicativas:
Users guide and technical manual. Baltimore: P. H.
Brookes.
MacWhinney, B., & Snow, C. (1985). The Child Language
Data Exchange System. Journal of Child Language, 12,
271296.
MacWhinney, B., & Snow, C. (1990). The Child Language
Data Exchange System: An update. Journal of Child
Language, 17, 457472.
Marchman, V. (1999). Scoring program for the MacArthur
Communicative Development Inventories (English and
Spanish) [Computer program]. The University of Texas at
Dallas.
Marchman, V., & Bates, E. (1994). Continuity in lexical
and morphological development: A test of the critical mass
hypothesis. Journal of Child Language, 21, 331366.
Marchman, V., Martnez-Sussmann, C., & Price, P.
(2000, June-July). Individual differences in learning
contexts for Spanish- and English-speaking children.
Poster presented at Head Starts Fifth National Research
Conference, Washington, DC.
Nicoladis, E., & Genesee, F. (1997). Language develop-
ment in preschool bilingual children. Journal of Speech
Language Pathology and Audiology, 21, 258270.
Marchman & Martnez-Sussmann: Validity of Parent Report in English and Spanish 997
Nicoladis, E., & Genesee, F. (1998). Parental discourse
and codemixing in bilingual children. International
Journal of Bilingualism, 2, 8599.
Patterson, J. (1998). Expressive vocabulary development
and word combinations of Spanish-English bilingual
toddlers. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathol-
ogy, 7, 4656.
Patterson, J. (2000). Observed and reported expressive
vocabulary and word combinations in bilingual toddlers.
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43,
121128.
Pearson, B. Z. (1992). Rationale for English-Spanish CDI
mapping (Technical Paper). University of Miami Mailman
Center.
Pearson, B. Z., & Fernndez, S. C. (1994). Patterns of
interaction in the lexical growth in two language of
bilingual infants and toddlers. Language Learning, 44,
617653.
Pearson, B. Z., Fernndez, S. C., Lewedeg, V., & Oller,
D. K. (1997). The relation of input factors to lexical
learning by bilingual infants. Applied Psycholinguistics,
18, 4158.
Pearson, B. Z., Fernndez, S. C., & Oller, D. K. (1993).
Lexical development in bilingual infants and toddlers:
Comparison to monolingual norms. Language Learning,
43(1), 93120.
Pearson, B. Z., Fernndez, S. C., & Oller, D. K. (1995).
Cross-language synonyms in the lexicons of bilingual
infants: One language or two? Journal of Child Language,
22, 345368.
Quay, S. (1995). The bilingual lexicon: Implications for
studies of language choice. Journal of Child Language, 22,
369388.
Rescorla, L. (1989). The Language Development Survey: A
screening tool for delayed language in toddlers. Journal of
Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 587599.
Thal, D., Jackson-Maldonado, D., & Acosta, D. (2000).
Validity of a parent report measure of vocabulary and
grammar for Spanish-speaking toddlers. Journal of
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 10871100.
Thal, D., OHanlon, L., Clemmons, M., & Frailin, L.
(1999). Validity of a parent report measure of vocabulary
and syntax for preschool children with language impair-
ment. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Re-
search, 42, 482496.
Tomasello, M., & Mervis, C. B. (1994). The instrument is
great, but measuring comprehension is still a problem.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Develop-
ment, 59(5). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Tomblin, J. B., Shonrock, C. M., & Hardy, J. C. (1989).
The concurrent validity of the Minnesota Child Develop-
ment Inventory as a measure of young childrens language
development. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders,
54, 101105.
Umbel, V. M., Pearson, B. Z., Fernndez, M. C., & Oller,
D. K. (1992). Measuring bilingual childrens receptive
vocabularies. Child Development, 63, 10121020.
Received April 2, 2002
Accepted June 5, 2002
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/080)
Contact author: Virginia A. Marchman, PhD, School of
Human Development GR 41, P.O. Box 830688, The
University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, TX 75083-0688.
E-mail: vamarch@utdallas.edu
DOI: 10.1044/1092-4388(2002/080)
2002;45;983-997 J Speech Lang Hear Res
Virginia A. Marchman, and Carmen Martnez-Sussmann

Who Are Learning Both English and Spanish
Concurrent Validity of Caregiver/Parent Report Measures of Language for Children
http://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/content/abstract/45/5/983#otherarticles
at:
This article has been cited by 12 HighWire-hosted article(s) which you can access for free
This information is current as of June 18, 2012
http://jslhr.asha.org/cgi/content/abstract/45/5/983
located on the World Wide Web at:
This article, along with updated information and services, is