Methodology
The First Native Scale is a screening instrument based on structured parental observation, with optional age-adjusted tasks for the child. This page describes its origins, structure, scoring, and limits.
The stage model emerged from qualitative analysis of 49 in-depth diagnostic transcripts — recorded sessions with families raising children in the US, Germany, Canada, Israel, the UK, Spain, France, Norway and other countries. Across very different families, the trajectory of attrition repeated: the same behaviours appeared in the same order. The five stages are a formalization of that recurring order.
The underlying clinical archive of the initiative's partner network spans 71,838 diagnostic sessions with roughly 27,500 families; aggregate analyses of this archive are in preparation (see Data & Research).
The instrument's primary evidence is what the parent observes daily — not a one-off performance by the child. Parental questionnaires are an established, validated approach to assessing heritage-language proficiency, particularly where direct assessment in the heritage language is impractical:
Following this literature, the instrument measures exposure (how much of the language is actually present in the child's life) separately from proficiency behaviours — low exposure is reported as a risk factor, not as a "worse stage".
| Block | Items | Role |
|---|---|---|
| Context | 3 — age, years abroad, schooling language | selects age norms and the child task; no stage score |
| Exposure | 3 — language at home, contacts beyond parents, media | risk factor, reported separately; no stage score |
| Observation | 6 — language of reply, talk about feelings, retrieval pauses, attitude, conversation with grandparents, comprehension | determines the stage |
| Child task (optional) | 12 picture-naming items (ages 3–9) or 8 verbal tasks (ages 10–13) | refines vocabulary and fluency; never determines the stage alone |
Observation items are phrased as behaviour, not evaluation — "When you address the child in your language, in which language do they reply?" rather than "How good is their language?". Each observation item is scored 0–3; the stage is derived from the proportion of the maximum score, so that unanswerable items (e.g. no living grandparents) are excluded without penalty.
A child of 4 and a child of 12 lose different things. At four, object vocabulary goes; at twelve, object vocabulary usually survives while abstract vocabulary, figurative meaning and connected speech collapse. The task therefore differs by age band:
| Ages | Task | Expected range |
|---|---|---|
| 3–5 | 12 pictures, basic objects | 9–12 named |
| 6–9 | 12 pictures incl. lower-frequency household objects | 10–12 named |
| 10–13 | 8 verbal tasks: explaining abstract words, idioms, antonyms, connected narrative | rated per task; switching to the majority language is the most informative signal |
The result screen shows not only the stage but the specific parental answers it follows from ("you noted that the child replies in the majority language; that talking about feelings switches languages; …"). A screening tool that cannot show its reasoning invites justified distrust.
Current stage thresholds are expert-set, informed by the qualitative core of 49 transcripts. Ongoing calibration uses anonymized questionnaire results (answer indices only — no names, no contact data, no free text) compared against subsequent specialist assessment, with thresholds to be adjusted as the calibration sample grows. This status is stated openly wherever the instrument is offered.