What is it about?
We adapted a 24-item parent questionnaire called the CSBS-DP-ITC—originally developed in English—into Simplified Chinese for use in mainland China. This checklist helps parents of infants aged 6–24 months rate their child's early communication skills, including how they use eye contact, gestures, sounds, words, and pretend play. We tested the Chinese version with 296 families in Shanghai. Parents completed the checklist, and their children also took a standard developmental test (the Gesell Scale) for comparison. We then analyzed whether the checklist produced consistent scores over time, whether it measured what it was supposed to measure, and whether it could distinguish between typically developing infants and those with developmental delays. The results showed that the Simplified Chinese version is reliable and works well for screening early communication problems. However, some items were too easy (most infants passed them) or too hard (most infants failed them), and two specific social skills items didn't perform as strongly.
Featured Image
Photo by 东旭 王 on Unsplash
Why is it important?
No validated Simplified Chinese version of this internationally used screening tool previously existed for mainland China. A Taiwanese version is not directly applicable due to differences in writing systems, pronunciation, and vocabulary between mainland China and the Taiwan Province of China. Early identification of communication delays is critical—the sooner a delay is spotted, the sooner a child can receive support. This adapted checklist gives Chinese pediatricians, child health workers, and parents a practical, low-cost tool to screen infants as young as 6 months.
Perspectives
Writing this paper was both challenging and rewarding. The hardest part was deciding how to modify certain items to fit Chinese parenting realities without changing what the original tool was trying to measure. For example, the original English item used "uh oh" as a sound example, but Chinese infants rarely make that sound—they say "ena" instead. Small changes like that mattered. I hope this paper helps clinicians feel more confident using a culturally appropriate tool rather than relying on direct translations that might misclassify children. I also hope it reminds researchers that "universal" developmental milestones still need local checking. Our urban, highly educated Shanghai sample is not representative of all of China—I would love to see future studies take this checklist into rural villages and lower-resource settings where early intervention support is often most needed but hardest to access.
Weiqin Wang
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Cross-Cultural Adaptation and Validation of the Simplified Chinese Version of the Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales Developmental Profile Infant–Toddler Checklist, American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, April 2026, American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA),
DOI: 10.1044/2026_ajslp-25-00354.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page
