Search

Test‐retest reliability—establishing that measurements remain consistent across multiple testing sessions—is critical to measuring, understanding, and predicting individual differences in infant language development. However, previous attempts to establish measurement reliability in infant speech perception tasks are limited, and reliability of frequently used infant measures is largely unknown. The current study investigated the test‐retest reliability of infants' preference for infant‐directed speech over adult‐directed speech in a large sample (N = 158) in the context of the ManyBabies1 collaborative research project. Labs were asked to bring in participating infants for a second appointment retesting infants on their preference for infant‐directed speech. This approach allowed us to estimate test‐retest reliability across three different methods used to investigate preferential listening in infancy: the head‐turn preference procedure, central fixation, and eye‐tracking. Overall, we found no consistent evidence of test‐retest reliability in measures of infants' speech preference (overall r = 0.09, 95% CI [−0.06,0.25]). While increasing the number of trials that infants needed to contribute for inclusion in the analysis revealed a numeric growth in test‐retest reliability, it also considerably reduced the study's effective sample size. Therefore, future research on infant development should take into account that not all experimental measures may be appropriate for assessing individual differences between infants. Research Highlights: We assessed test‐retest reliability of infants' preference for infant‐directed over adult‐directed speech in a large pre‐registered sample (N = 158).There was no consistent evidence of test‐retest reliability in measures of infants' speech preference.Applying stricter criteria for the inclusion of participants may lead to higher test‐retest reliability, but at the cost of substantial decreases in sample size.Developmental research relying on stable individual differences should consider the underlying reliability of its measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess agreement for migraine day between self‐report and diagnostic guidelines for children and adolescents using a headache diary. Background: Trial guidelines recommend prospective collection of headache features and adoption of migraine day as an outcome measure, but there is no clear consensus on the definition of migraine day. Methods: This is a secondary analysis of data from two projects—a prospective cohort study validating a pediatric scale of treatment expectancy and a clinical trial of occipital nerve blocks to treat status migrainosus. Participants completed a text message‐based diary for 4 or 12 weeks (depending on treatment), and a detailed headache assessment on a random 20% of headache days. Using this assessment, we determined whether a headache day qualified for migraine or probable migraine, based on the International Classification of Headache Disorders, 3rd edition (ICHD‐3). Results: Of 122 enrolled children and adolescents, 106 (86.9%) completed ≥1 detailed headache assessment (438 entries). We found moderate agreement between self‐reported and ICHD‐derived migraine day, with a Cohen's Kappa of 0.50 (positive predictive value [PPV]: 0.66; negative predictive value [NPV]: 0.85; correlation: 0.51). Allowing for ICHD‐derived probable migraine significantly increased PPV (0.66 vs. 0.94; 95% CI: 0.57–0.74 vs. 0.90–0.97), but decreased NPV (0.85 vs. 0.293; CI: 0.77–0.90 vs. 0.199–0.40), Cohen's Kappa (0.50 vs. 0.237; CI: 0. 389–0.60 vs. 0.139–0.352), and correlation (r = 0.51 vs. 0.302; CI: 0.41–0.61 vs. 0.192–0.41). Pain severity (OR: 5.7; CI: 2.39–13.8), photophobia (OR: 4.1; CI: 1.02–16.6), and phonophobia (OR: 7.5; CI: 1.95–29.3) were significantly associated with participants' perception of migraine. Conclusion: We found only moderate agreement between self‐reported and ICHD‐derived migraine day, suggesting both measures are not equal but may represent overlapping aspects of migraine as a disease. This highlights the difficulty of applying ICHD criteria to individual attacks. We recommend greater methodological transparency in future research to avoid readers conflating both measures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]