Document Type : Original Articles


1 Neuromuscular Rehabilitation Research Center, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran

2 Social Determinants of Health Research Center, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran.

3 Department of Community Medicine, School of Medicine, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran.

4 Department of Speech Therapy, School of Rehabilitation, Tehran University of Medical Sciences, Tehran, Iran

5 Department of Speech and Language Therapy, Semnan University of Medical Sciences, Semnan, Iran


Backgrounds: Language professionals require effective tools to gather accurate information about children's language in diverse settings. This study aimed to create a Persian version of the Preschoolers' Conversational Skills scale and gather initial data on conversational skills in children with and without language disorders.
Method: The study primarily aimed to adapt an English research instrument into a Persian version. To achieve this goal, the research team employed a comprehensive process, including forward translation, synthesis of translations (harmony), backward translations (consolidation), expert committee review, cognitive interviewing, test of pre-final version, and submission and appraisal of all written reports. The participants involved in this process consisted of four translators, a statistician, a linguist, a speech therapist, the research team, eleven language professionals, ten mothers for cognitive interviewing, and 114 mothers for pretesting the final adapted version. A test-retest approach was utilized to assess the scale's reliability.
Results: During the translation process, there were no complicated words or phrases encountered. The expert panel retained all items from the adapted version, adding examples to two items. Participants who evaluated the Persian version found the items clear and straightforward. The Content Validity Ratio (CVR) and Scale Content Validity Index (S-CVI) were 1 and above 0.9, respectively, indicating high content validity. The Cronbach's alpha value, which measures the scale's internal consistency, was calculated to be 0.9, signifying a high level of reliability. The scale used cut-off points of at or below 2.5, between 2.5 and 4.8, and at or above 4.8 to categorize children based on their conversational skills.
Conclusion: the adapted version of the Preschoolers’ Conversational Skills scale has demonstrated excellent validity and high reliability. Moreover, the scale is easy and quick to administer, making it suitable for use in clinical settings to evaluate children's pragmatic language abilities. Based on the scale's categorization, children can be classified into three groups: "no or infrequent pragmatic skills," "emerging pragmatic skills," and "well-developed pragmatic skills."


  1. Papafragou A. Pragmatic Development. Lang Learn Dev. 2018;14(3):167-9.
  2. Damico JS, Muller N, Ball MJ. The Handbook of Language and Speech Disorders. Singapore: Wiley-Blackwell; 2012.
  3. Oryadi-Zanjani MM, Vahab M, Rasouli J, Ghasemi S, Yazdizade A. Center-Based Care and Language Development: A Pilot Study on 6-15 Month-Old Persian-Speaking Children. Journal of Rehabilitation Sciences & Research. 2016;3(1):1-4.
  4. Koohestani F, Rezaei P, Nakhshab M. Developing a Persian Version of the Checklist of Pragmatic Behaviors and Assessing Its Psychometric Properties: A Preliminary Study. Archives of Rehabilitation. 2020;21(3):358-75.
  5. Fey ME. Language Intervention with Young Children. San Diego: College-Hill; 1986.
  6. American Speech-Language-Hearing Research. Family-Centered Practice USA: ASHA; 2020 [cited 2020 25/6/2020].
  7. Girolametto L. Development of a Parent Report Measure for Profiling the Conversational Skills of Preschool Children. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1997;6(4):25-33.
  8. Bonifacio S, Girolametto L, Montico M. Le abilità socio-conversazionali del bambino [The child's socio-conversational skills]. Italy: FrancoAngeli; 2017.
  9. Girolametto L, Tannock R, Siegel L. Consumer-Oriented Evaluation of Interactive Language Intervention. Am J Speech Lang Pathol. 1993;2(3):41-51.
  10. Suen HK, Logan CR, Neisworth JT, Bagnato S. Parent-professional congruence: Is it necessary? J Early Interv. 1995;19(3):243-52.
  11. Beaton DE, Bombardier C, Guillemin F, Ferraz MB. Guidelines for the process of cross-cultural adaptation of self-report measures. Spine. 2000;25(24):3186-91.
  12. World Health Organization. Process of translation and adaptation of instruments: WHO; 2020 [cited 2020]. Available from:
  13. Saw SM, Ng TP. The design and assessment of questionnaires in clinical research. Singap Med J. 2001;42(3):131-5.
  14. Haeger H, Lambert AD, Kinzie J, Gieser J. Using cognitive interviews to improve survey instruments. the annual forum of the Association for Institutional Research; New Orleans, Louisiana: Association for Institutional Research Annual Forum; 2012.
  15. Wynd CA, Schmidt B, Schaefer MA. Two quantitative approaches for estimating content validity. West J Nurs Res. 2003;25(5):508-18.
  16. Armstrong TS, Cohen MZ, Eriksen L, Cleeland C. Content validity of self-report measurement instruments: an illustration from the development of the Brain Tumor Module of the M.D. Anderson Symptom Inventory. Oncol Nurs Forum. 2005;32(3):669-76.
  17. Zamanzadeh V, Ghahramanian A, Rassouli M, Abbaszadeh A, Alavi-Majd H, Nikanfar AR. Design and Implementation Content Validity Study: Development of an instrument for measuring Patient-Centered Communication. Journal of caring sciences. 2015;4(2):165-78.
  18. Yamada J, Stevens B, Sidani S, Watt-Watson J, de Silva N. Content validity of a process evaluation checklist to measure intervention implementation fidelity of the EPIC intervention. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2010;7(3):158-64.
  19. Shi J, Mo X, Sun Z. [Content validity index in scale development]. Zhong nan da xue xue bao Yi xue ban = Journal of Central South University Medical sciences. 2012;37(2):152-5.
  20. Kazemi Y, Nakhshab M, Maleki T. Children's language assessment. Isfahan: Tolid Elm; 2017.
  21. Kazemi Y, Taheri A, Kianfar F, Shafiei M, Eslamifard R, Pirmoradian M, et al. Mean Length of Utterance (MLU) in typically-developing 2;6-5;6 year-old Farsi-speaking children in Iran. Journal of Research in Rehabilitation Sciences (IRRS). 2012;8(5):1-10.
  22. Cronbach LJ, Meehl PE. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychol Bull. 1955;52(4):281-302.
  23. Sjoberg DIK, Bergersen GR. Construct Validity in Software Engineering. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering. 2022:1-.
  24. Westen D, Rosenthal R. Quantifying construct validity: two simple measures. Journal of personality and social psychology. 2003;84(3):608-18.
  25. Vieira AL. Interactive LISREL in practice: Springer; 2011.
  26. Kazemi Y, Klee T, Stringer H. Diagnostic accuracy of language sample measures with Persian-speaking preschool children. Clin Linguist Phon. 2015;29(4):304-18.
  27. Tavakol M, Dennick R. Making sense of Cronbach's alpha. Int J Med Educ. 2011;2:53-5.
  28. Johnson RA, Wichern DW. Applied Multivariate Statistical Analysis. New Jersey, USA: PEARSON; 1998.
  29. Richels CG, Johnson KN, Walden TA, Conture EG. Socioeconomic status, parental education, vocabulary and language skills of children who stutter. J Commun Disord. 2013;46(4):361-74.
  30. Umek LM, Fekonja U, Kranjc S, Bajc K. The effect of children’s gender and parental education on toddler language development. Eur Early Child Educ Res. 2008;16(3):325-42.