Evaluation of the Crosslinguistic Nonword Repetition Test Evidence From a Large and Diverse Secondary Data Set

Authors
  • Kamila Polišenská
  • Shula Chiat
  • Jakub Szewczyk
  • Stanislava Antonijevic
  • Elma Blom
  • Tessel Boerma
  • Ute Bohnacker
  • Angel Chan
  • Vasiliki Chondrogianni
  • Nga Ching Fu
  • Daniela Gatt
  • Helen Grech
  • Magdalena Jezek
  • Svetlana Kapalková
  • Sari Kunnari
  • Juliane Maier
  • Chantal Mayer-Crittenden
  • Linnéa Öberg
  • Salomé Schwob
  • Katrin Skoruppa
  • Nadine Tabone
  • Josje Verhagen ORCID logo
  • Michelle White
Publication date 11-2025
Journal Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research
Volume | Issue number 68 | 11
Pages (from-to) 5363-5383
Number of pages 21
Organisations
  • Faculty of Humanities (FGw) - Amsterdam Institute for Humanities Research (AIHR) - Amsterdam Center for Language and Communication (ACLC)
Abstract

Purpose: The aim of this study was to evaluate the crosslinguistic validity of the Crossling uistic Nonword Repetition Test (CL-NWR) based on a large multi country sample by investigating factors related to language ability, as well as potential confounds. Method: The data consisted of CL-NWR scores from children aged 37–165 months, collected by 18 research teams across 15 countries. Item-level analysis was employed to examine any nondesirable effects of gender, socioeconomic status, bilingual status, and the amount of exposure to the test language, as well as desirable effects of age, item length, and clinical status (children categorized as typically developing [TD], with developmental language disorder [DLD], or with reported language concerns [LC], respectively). Subsamples were used to evaluate the consistency of findings across three time points and between different versions of the CL-NWR. Results: Bayesian analysis provided strong evidence for the effects of age, item length, and clinical status on CL-NWR performance, as well as consistency across time points. In contrast, there was weak or no evidence for the effects of gender, socioeconomic status, bilingual status, amount of exposure, or test version. Additionally, there were two interactions between (a) item length and clinical status, suggesting that children with DLD found longer nonwords disproportionately more challenging than TD children, and (b) age and clinical status, with the gap between TD and LC groups narrowing with age. Conclusions: The CL-NWR was unaffected by environmental and demographic factors that often influence language assessments, including some nonword repetition tests. Performance was driven by factors reflecting language abilities. This makes the CL-NWR a unique and valuable tool for language assessment contributing to the identification of DLD in diverse linguistic, social, and geographical contexts.

Document type Article
Language English
Published at https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_JSLHR-25-00158
Other links https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/105021469561
Downloads
polišenská-et-al-2025-evaluation-of-the-crosslinguistic-nonword-repetition-test-evidence-from-a-large-and-diverse (Embargo up to 2026-05-11) (Final published version)
Permalink to this page
Back