The development of reading tests for use in a regularly spelled language.

Data are presented on the development of tests of reading skill in rural Tanzanian primary school pupils. Instruction in these schools is in Kiswahili, a regularly spelt language. Using a translation of a standard reading test, children could read aloud all words once they had learnt sound-letter correspondences, regardless of comprehension. In addition, children can appear to pass traditional comprehension tasks by decoding only some of the words. Three graded tests were developed which allow testing of children who either have only some letter knowledge, can read single words, or are proficient readers. The tests require children to both decode and understand the reading material in order to achieve high scores. The tests correlated well with scores on other educational achievement tests, and showed age and school grade differences. It is suggested that these tests are useful measures of reading development in a regularly spelt language. Adaptation to English and validation against standardised instruments is planned

Developmental inventories using illiterate parents as informants:Communicative Development Inventory (CDI) adaptation for two Kenyan languages

Communicative Development Inventories (CDIs, parent-completed language development checklists) are a helpful tool to assess language in children who are unused to interaction with unfamiliar adults. Generally, CDIs are completed in written form, but in developing country settings parents may have insufficient literacy to complete them alone. We designed CDIs to assess language development in children aged 0;8 to 2;4 in two languages used in Coastal communities in Kenya. Measures of vocabulary, gestures, and grammatical constructions were developed using both interviews with parents from varying backgrounds, and vocabulary as well as grammatical constructions from recordings of children's spontaneous speech. The CDIs were then administered in interview format to over 300 families. Reliability and validity ranged from acceptable to excellent, supporting the use of CDIs when direct language testing is impractical, even when children have multiple caregivers and where respondents have low literacy levels

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

BackgroundA safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials.MethodsThis analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674.FindingsBetween April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation.InterpretationChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials.FundingUK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D’Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK.

BACKGROUND: A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. METHODS: This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. FINDINGS: Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0-75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4-97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8-80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3-4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. INTERPRETATION: ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials. FUNDING: UK Research and Innovation, National Institutes for Health Research (NIHR), Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Lemann Foundation, Rede D'Or, Brava and Telles Foundation, NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre, Thames Valley and South Midland's NIHR Clinical Research Network, and AstraZeneca

Safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine (AZD1222) against SARS-CoV-2: an interim analysis of four randomised controlled trials in Brazil, South Africa, and the UK

Background A safe and efficacious vaccine against severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), if deployed with high coverage, could contribute to the control of the COVID-19 pandemic. We evaluated the safety and efficacy of the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine in a pooled interim analysis of four trials. Methods This analysis includes data from four ongoing blinded, randomised, controlled trials done across the UK, Brazil, and South Africa. Participants aged 18 years and older were randomly assigned (1:1) to ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 vaccine or control (meningococcal group A, C, W, and Y conjugate vaccine or saline). Participants in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group received two doses containing 5 × 1010 viral particles (standard dose; SD/SD cohort); a subset in the UK trial received a half dose as their first dose (low dose) and a standard dose as their second dose (LD/SD cohort). The primary efficacy analysis included symptomatic COVID-19 in seronegative participants with a nucleic acid amplification test-positive swab more than 14 days after a second dose of vaccine. Participants were analysed according to treatment received, with data cutoff on Nov 4, 2020. Vaccine efficacy was calculated as 1 - relative risk derived from a robust Poisson regression model adjusted for age. Studies are registered at ISRCTN89951424 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04324606, NCT04400838, and NCT04444674. Findings Between April 23 and Nov 4, 2020, 23 848 participants were enrolled and 11 636 participants (7548 in the UK, 4088 in Brazil) were included in the interim primary efficacy analysis. In participants who received two standard doses, vaccine efficacy was 62·1% (95% CI 41·0–75·7; 27 [0·6%] of 4440 in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group vs71 [1·6%] of 4455 in the control group) and in participants who received a low dose followed by a standard dose, efficacy was 90·0% (67·4–97·0; three [0·2%] of 1367 vs 30 [2·2%] of 1374; pinteraction=0·010). Overall vaccine efficacy across both groups was 70·4% (95·8% CI 54·8–80·6; 30 [0·5%] of 5807 vs 101 [1·7%] of 5829). From 21 days after the first dose, there were ten cases hospitalised for COVID-19, all in the control arm; two were classified as severe COVID-19, including one death. There were 74 341 person-months of safety follow-up (median 3·4 months, IQR 1·3–4·8): 175 severe adverse events occurred in 168 participants, 84 events in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group and 91 in the control group. Three events were classified as possibly related to a vaccine: one in the ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 group, one in the control group, and one in a participant who remains masked to group allocation. Interpretation ChAdOx1 nCoV-19 has an acceptable safety profile and has been found to be efficacious against symptomatic COVID-19 in this interim analysis of ongoing clinical trials

A parentally-administered cognitive development assessment for children from 10 to 24 months

The Cognitive Development Questionnaire (CDQ) allows accurate assessment of cognitive development of children from 10 to 24 months by parents and caregivers in the home. It takes between one and two hours to complete over about a week. Three phases of work are described, in which the instrument is progressively refined to improve its validity and reliability. This resulting version of the CDQ shows excellent correlation with age, and with the Mental Scale of the Bayley Scales of Infant Development (Bayley, 1993). The CDQ thus offers researchers and clinicians a useful alternative to professionally-administered cognitive assessment in infancy

Literacy in Kiswahili.

Kiswahili is a little-studied but widely spoken language with its origins in East Africa. This chapter introduces the topic of literacy in Kiswahili by summarising some information about the language and its history. Following this, work on the development of reading and spelling in Kiswahili is reviewed. Learning to read Kiswahili is generally a rapid, all-or-nothing process. However, spelling development is not so straightforward, even in this regularly spelled language, because a variety of factors other than the phoneme–grapheme relationship contribute to spelling. This chapter concludes with an illustration of how the study of this language can illuminate our knowledge of literacy development in languages other than English

The quick brown fox run over one lazy geese : phonological and morphological processing of plurals in English.

There is some evidence that semantics, conceptual features, and phonology interact with syntactic processing of words; however, other accounts suggest that in particular, irregular and regular English nouns and verbs, which differ in their phonology, are processed through different routes. The processing of regular and irregular nouns, and of pseudoplurals (nouns with the phonological form of a plural that are morphologically singular, such as cheese), was examined in a final-word sentence priming task. When the noun itself was repeated by participants in a grammatical or ungrammatical context (We saw one/three dog/dogs) regulars and irregular singulars showed a straightforward grammaticality effect, with repetition faster in grammatical sentences, while pseudoplurals and irregular plurals showed no grammaticality effect. When a verb following the noun was repeated in a grammatical or ungrammatical context (The dog/dogs runs/run) an interaction was found between number and grammaticality: both regular and irregular singulars showed a grammaticality effect, while regular and irregular plurals showed no or a reverse grammaticality effect; this was true both of university students and older participants. Pseudoplurals showed a straightforward grammaticality effect in the direction predicted by their morphology. It is concluded that the processing of nouns with conflicting morphology and phonology – such as irregular plurals and pseudoplurals – is influenced by both these features. However, previous studies (Bock & Eberhard, 1993) that have found irregular plurals and pseudoplurals do not differ from regulars in their processing may have been affected by aspects of the tasks or stimuli chosen

Learning to spell a regularly spelled language is not a trivial task - patterns of errors in Kiswahili.

Various theories of spelling development are discussed, includingtheir relevance to regularly spelled languages. For those languagesstudied so far, models including the incorporation of a wide variety oflinguistic knowledge seem most fruitful. Data from studies of reading,however, suggest that when the language is regularly spelled children donot make many errors after the initial stages. Data are presented fromspelling errors in children learning to spell Kiswahili, a regularlyspelled, non-European language. Patterns of errors and even specificphonemes and graphemes that are problematic are shown to resembleclosely the patterns found in English and other European languages. Itis concluded that, as in other languages, children are integrating manydifferent types of linguistic knowledge in their attempt to spell wordscorrectly; dialect, orthography, and grammatical knowledge are allimportant. Unlike reading such a language, spelling a regularly spelledlanguage is a cognitively challenging task

Validity and reliability of the ‘Ten Questions’ questionnaire for detecting moderate to severe neurological impairment in children aged 6–9 years in rural Kenya

The 'Ten Questions' questionnaire (TQQ) is used to detect severe neurological impairment in children living in resource-poor countries. Its usefulness has been established in Asia and the Caribbean, but there are a few published studies from Africa. We evaluated the TQQ as part of a larger study of neurological impairment in a rural community, on the coast of Kenya. Methods: The study was conducted in two phases from June 2001 to May 2002; in phase one, a community household screening of 10,218 children aged 6-9 years using the TQQ was performed. Phase two involved a comprehensive clinical and psychological assessment of all children testing positive on the TQQ (n = 810) and an equivalent number of those testing negative (n = 766). Data were interpreted using the impairment-specific approach. Results: Overall, the sensitivity rates for screening the different impairments were: cognitive (70.0%), motor (71.4%), epilepsy (100%), hearing (87.4%) and visual (77.8%). All the specificity rates were greater than 96%. However, the positive predictive values were low, and ranged from 11 to 33%. Conclusions: These results are similar to those from other continents and provide evidence that the TQQ can be used to compare the epidemiology of moderate/severe impairment in different parts of the world. Furthermore, the TQQ can be used to screen for moderately/severely impaired children in resource-poor countries; however, the low positive predictive values mean that other assessments are required for confirmation