TRILHAR: Content validity of a child vocabulary screening instrument
TRILHAR: validade de conteúdo de um instrumento de triagem do vocabulário infantil
Alexandre Lucas de Araújo Barbosa; Cíntia Alves Salgado Azoni
Abstract
Keywords
Resumo
Objetivo: obter as evidências de validade de conteúdo do instrumento TRILHAR.
Métodos: trata-se de um estudo transversal e quantitativo, utilizando o instrumento TRILHAR, destinado à triagem do vocabulário receptivo e expressivo de crianças entre três e sete anos. A amostra foi composta por 15 juízes especialistas na área infantil, que avaliaram o instrumento quanto ao Racional Teórico, Princípios da Triagem e Materiais, além de preencherem um formulário para avaliação das figuras. Para a análise dos dados, calcularam-se o Índice de Validade de Conteúdo (IVC), o Índice de Validade de Conteúdo por Item (IVC-I) e o Coeficiente de Validade de Conteúdo (CVC). Para as figuras, o ponto de corte adotado foi de 75% de avaliações positivas.
Resultados: todos os critérios apresentaram IVC e CVC adequados. Contudo, no IVC-I, os subcritérios aspectos gráficos e clareza na descrição do caderno de aplicação ficaram abaixo do esperado. Na análise das figuras, 17 das 100 apresentaram necessidade de reformulação.
Conclusão: o TRILHAR apresenta validade de conteúdo adequada para a triagem do vocabulário de crianças entre três e sete anos de idade. Seus itens apresentam estrutura semântica adequada, figuras apropriadas e caderno de aplicação adequado para o seu uso nos contextos clínicos e educacionais.
Palavras-chave
References
1. Chow J, Davies AM, Fuentes LJ, Plunkett K. The vocabulary spurt predicts the emergence of backward semantic inhibition in 18-month-old toddlers. Dev Sci. 2018;22(2).
2. Carbonieri J, Lúcio P. Vocabulary assessment in Brazilian children: A systematic review with three instruments. CoDAS. 2020;32(3):e20180245.
3. Luo Y, Song H, Li W, Zhang X. The effect of vocabulary depth and breadth on english listening comprehension can depend on how comprehension is measured. Front Psychol. 2021;25(12):657573.
4. Tran A, Tremblay K, Binder K. The factor structure of vocabular: An investigation of breadth and depth of adults with low literacy skills. J Psycholinguist Res. 2020;49(2):335-50.
5. Nazzi T, Bertoncini J. Before and after the vocabulary spurt: Two modes of word acquisition. Dev Science. 2003;6(2):136-42.
6. 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.
7. Song S, Su M, Kang C, Liu H, Zhang Y, Mc-Bride-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.
8. Lee J. Size matters: Early vocabulary as a predictor of language and literacy competence. Appl Psycholinguist. 2011;32(1):69-92.
9. Borovsky A, Thal D, Leonard LB. Moving towards accurate and early prediction of language delay with network science and machine learning approaches. Sci Rep. 2021;11(8136).
10. So KKH, To CKS. Systematic review and meta-analysis of screening tools for language disorder. Front Pediatr. 2022;10:801220.
11. Belteki Z, Lumbreras R, Fico K, Haman E, Junge C. The Vocabulary of infants with an elevated likelihood and diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder: A systematic review and meta-analysis of infant language studies using the CDI and MSEL. Int J Enrion Res Public Health. 2022;19(3):1469.
12. Calabrese P, Hedger N, Pritchard K, Stojanovik V, Pagnamenta E. Word learning in children with developmental language disorder: A meta-analysis testing the encoding hypothesis. J Mem Lang. 2015;145:104678.
13. Katsarou D, Efthymiou E, Kougioumtzis G, Sofologi M, Theodoratou M. Identifying language development in children with ADHD: Differential challenges, interventions, and collaborative strategies. Children (Basel). 2024;11(7):841.
14. van der Schuit, Segers E, Balkom H, Verhoeven L. How cognitive factors affect language development in children with intellectual disabilities. Res Dev Disabil. 2011;32(5):1884-94.
15. Lammert JM, Roberts AC, McRae K, Batterink LJ, Butler BE. Early identification of language disorders using natural language processing and machine learning: Challenges and emerging approaches. J Speech Lang Hear Res. 2025;68(2):705-18.
16. Spicer-Cain H, Camilleri B, Hasson N, Botting N. Early identification of children at risk of communication disorders: Introducing a novel battery of dynamic assessments for infants. Am J Speech-Lang Pathol. 2023;32(2).
17. Steele S, Gibbons L. Vocabulary assessment techniques: Perspectives of school-based speech-language pathologists. Commun Disord Q. 2022;44(2):79-88.
18. Rescorla L, Nyame J, Dias P. Vocabulary development in european portuguese: A replication study using the language development survey. J Speech Lang Har Res. 2016;59(6):1484-90.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. Puglisi ML, Blasi HF, Snowling MJ. Screening for the identification of oral language difficulties in Brazilian preschoolers: A validation study. Lang Speech Hear Serv Sch. 2020;51(3):852-65.
22. Pernambuco L, Espelt A, Junior HVM, Lima KC. Recommendations for elaboration, transcultural adaptation and validation process of tests in speech, hearing and language pathology. CoDAS. 2017;29(3):e20160217.
23. Barbosa ALA, Soares HB, Azoni CAS. Development of a vocabulary-screening tool for children 3 to 7-years of age. Audiol., Communic. Res. 2019;24:e2131.
24. Polit D, Beck C. The content validity index: Are you sure of what's being reported. Res Nurs Health. 2006;29(5):489-97.
25. Mokkink L, Herbelet S, Tuinman P, Terwee C. Content validity: Judging the relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of an outcome measurement instrument - a COSMIN perspective. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025;(185):111879.
26. Swan K, Speyer R, Scharitzer M, Farneti D, Brown T, Woisard V et al. Measuring what matters in healthcare: A practical guide to psychometric principles and instrument development. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023;14:1225850.
27. Mokkink L, Prinsen C, Bouter L, Vet H, Terwee C. The COnsensus-based Standards for the Selection of Health Measurement Instruments (COSMIN) and how to select an outcome measurement instrument. Braz J Phys Ther. 2016;20(2):105-13.
28. Polit D, Beck C, Owen S. Is the CVI na acceptable indicator of content validity? Appraisal and recommendations. Res Nurs Health. 2007;30(4):459-67.
29. Yussof M. ABC of content validation and content validity index calculation. Educational Resource. 2019;11(2):49-54.
30. Alexandre N, Coluci M. Content validity in the development and adaptation processes of measurement instruments. Cienc Saude Colet. 2011;16(7):3061-8.
31. Hernández-Nieto R. Contributions to statistical analysis: The coefficient of proportional variance, content validity and Kappa. Mérica: Universidad de Los Andes. 2002. ISBN: 978-1588987150
32. Swan K, Speyer R, Scharitzer M, Farneti D, Brown T, Woisard V et al. Measuring what matters in healthcare: A practical guide to psychometric principles and instrument development. Frontiers in Psychology. 2023;14:1225850.
33. Bernardi ACS, Botura C, Alves GS, Ribas LP. Phonological Assessment Instrument: Evidence of content validity and response processes. CoDAS. 2024;36(2):e20220324.
34. Miranda MC, Pompéia S, Bueno OF. A comparative study of norms for a 400 picture set between Brazilian and North American children. Rev Bras Psiquiatr. 2004;26(4):226-33.
35. Mokkink L, Herbelet S, Tuinman P, Terwee C. Content validity: Judging the relevance, comprehensiveness and comprehensibility of an outcome measurement instrument - A COSMIN perspective. J Clin Epidemiol. 2025;185:111879.
36. 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 Mem. 1980;6(2):174-215.
Submitted date:
01/26/2026
Accepted date:
05/20/2026
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Mendeley
Email