Do infants have a sense of numerosity? A p-curve analysis of infant numerosity discrimination studies.

Research demonstrating that infants discriminate between small (e.g., 1 vs. 3 dots) and large numerosities (e.g., 8 vs. 16 dots) is central to theories concerning the origins of human numerical abilities. To date, there has been no quantitative meta-analysis of the infant numerical competency data. Here, we quantitatively synthesize the evidential value of the available literature on infant numerosity discrimination using a meta-analytic tool called p-curve. In p-curve the distribution of available p-values is analyzed to determine whether the published literature examining particular hypotheses contains evidential value. p-curves demonstrated evidential value for the hypotheses that infants can discriminate between both small and large unimodal and cross-modal numerosities. However, the analyses also revealed that the published data on infants' ability to discriminate between large numerosities is less robust and statistically powered than the data on their ability to discriminate small numerosities. We argue there is a need for adequately powered replication studies to enable stronger inferences in order to use infant data to ground theories concerning the ontogenesis of numerical cognition.

Testing the accuracy of timing reports in visual timing tasks with a consumer-grade digital camera.

This study tested the accuracy of a visual timing task using a readily available and relatively inexpensive consumer grade digital camera. A visual inspection time task was recorded using short high-speed video clips and the timing as reported by the task's program was compared to the timing as recorded in the video clips. Discrepancies in these two timing reports were investigated further and based on display refresh rate, a decision was made whether the discrepancy was large enough to affect the results as reported by the task. In this particular study, the errors in timing were not large enough to impact the results of the study. The procedure presented in this article offers an alternative method for performing a timing test, which uses readily available hardware and can be used to test the timing in any software program on any operating system and display.

Adopting a Conceptual Validity Framework for Testing in Speech-Language Pathology.

Purpose Limited evidence-based guidelines for test selection continue to result in inconsistency in test use and interpretation in speech-language pathology. A major barrier is the lack of explicit and consistent adoption of a validity framework by our field. In this viewpoint, we argue that adopting the conceptual validity framework in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association et al., 2014) would support both the development of more meaningful and feasible clinical tests and more appropriate use and interpretation of tests in speech-language pathology. Method We describe and evaluate the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (American Educational Research Association et al., 2014) validity framework and consider its relevance to speech-language pathology. We describe how the validity framework could be integrated into clinical practice and include examples of how it could be applied to support common clinical decisions. We evaluate the costs and benefits of adopting this framework, from the perspectives of speech-language pathologists, clients, and test developers. Results The Standards' validity framework clarifies complex validity issues by shifting the focus of validity from tests to the decisions speech-language pathologists make based on test results. By focusing on decisions, the framework requires critical evaluation of test use, rather than evaluating tests against sets of criteria. Adopting this framework has the potential for appreciable improvement in the way tests are used and valued across our profession. Conclusions Speech-language pathologists, test developers, and clients will benefit from improved evidence-based assessment practices. It is recommended that regulators, test developers, professional associations, universities, and researchers adopt the framework and endorse it as best practice moving forward. This viewpoint proposes a series of first steps toward supporting uptake of the framework into research and practice.

Lessons learned in practice-based research: Studying language interventions for young children in the real world.

Background and aims: Practice-based research holds potential as a promising solution to closing the research-practice gap, because it addresses research questions based on problems that arise in clinical practice and tests whether systems and interventions are effective and sustainable in a clinical setting. One type of practice-based research involves capturing practice by collecting evidence within clinical settings to evaluate the effectiveness of current practices. Here, we describe our collaboration between researchers and clinicians that sought to answer clinician-driven questions about community-based language interventions for young children (Are our interventions effective? What predicts response to our interventions?) and to address questions about the characteristics, strengths, and challenges of engaging in practice-based research. Methods: We performed a retrospective chart review of 59 young children who had participated in three group language interventions at one publicly funded community clinic between 2012 and 2017. Change on the Focus on the Outcomes of Communication Under Six (FOCUS), a government mandated communicative participation measure, was extracted as the main outcome measure. Potential predictors of growth during intervention were also extracted from the charts, including type of intervention received, attendance, age at the start of intervention, functional communication ability pre-intervention, and time between pre- and post-intervention FOCUS scores. Results: Overall, 49% of children demonstrated meaningful clinical change on the FOCUS after their participation in the language groups. Only 3% of participants showed possibly meaningful clinical change, while the remaining 46% of participants demonstrated not likely meaningful clinical change. There were no significant predictors of communicative participation growth during intervention. Conclusions: Using a practice-based research approach aimed at capturing current practice, we were able to answer questions about the effectiveness of interventions delivered in real-world settings and learn about factors that do not appear to influence growth during these interventions. We also learned about benefits associated with engaging in practice-based research, including high clinical motivation, high external validity, and minimal time/cost investment. Challenges identified were helpful in informing our future efforts to examine other possible predictors through development of a new, clinically feasible checklist, and to pursue methods for improving collection of outcome data in the clinical setting.Implications: Clinicians and researchers can successfully collaborate to answer clinically informed research questions while considering realistic clinical practice and using research-informed methods and principles. Practice-based research partnerships between researchers and clinicians are both valuable and feasible.