I've got a couple bingos on here for sure haha

Minute cryptic has really helped me break into understanding how the clues work! It's a single daily clue with an explainer video each day

This is so embarrassing of Concordia, how wrong-side-of-history can one university get?

@kbyers.bsky.social

@asander-science.bsky.social

You can read all the details in our Open Access paper here, published in Infancy: onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/... This is Melanie's first first-author publication!

On the whole, we found that item-level responses were capturing something about infants’ word production, but they weren’t giving us anything beyond global measures like age and vocabulary, and item-level responses weren’t helpful at all for comprehension.

This makes sense psychometrically: parents only get one binary chance to accurately report on each individual word, but can accurately capture their child’s vocabulary across the hundreds of words on the CDI.

The upshot: predictors that tell you how good a kid might be at knowing words in general (i.e., older kids know more words, and kids with bigger vocabularies know more words) are telling you as much about word-level performance as word-level metrics (whether the parent thinks that child knows “dog”)

This pattern didn’t hold in a more complex analysis with moderators: we added kids’ age and their total vocabulary score to a mixed-effects model. When these were taken into account, word-level knowledge no longer predicted performance.

Data from 126 kids (14-31mos) showed that without any moderators, kids looked more at target words they reportedly knew, but this only held for production: