Validation study demonstrates strong reliability and validity of the KBCSP for assessing code-switching in bilingual populations.
This study aimed at adapting and validating the Bilingual Code-Switching Profile into Kannada (KBCSP) to assess Code-Switching (CS) in Kannada-English speaking bilinguals. Given the significance of CS in bilingual cognition and linguistic interactions, the study evaluates the reliability and validity of the KBCSP, contributing to the broader understanding of CS behavior in Kannada-speaking populations. A nonrandomized, prospective cross-sectional design with purposive sampling was used. Initially, the Bilingual Code-Switching Profile was adapted into Kannada (KBCSP). The KBCSP was administered to three groups of participants. Group 1 consisted of 100 bilingual participants (first language [L1], Kannada; second language [L2], English). Group 2 consisted of 10 native Kodava-Kannada-speaking multilingual participants, and Group 3 consisted of 10 age- and gender-matched participants who were native Kannada-speaking bilinguals (L1, Kannada; L2, English). Responses from all the participants were tabulated and were subjected to statistical analyses. Results indicated that all the sections of the KBCSP had test-retest reliability scores of more than 0.92, indicating that the KBCSP had excellent test-retest reliability. The internal validity of the KBCSP was determined by using factor analysis, and results yielded six factors with eigenvalues greater than 1, indicating excellent internal consistency. Results also revealed significant differences in language switching, ease of language switching, and attitudes toward language switching between Group 2 and Group 3 participants, indicating good discriminant validity. KBCSP is one of the self-reporting questionnaires with good validity and reliability and therefore provides a structured means to document CS behaviors and patterns, making it a valuable resource for researchers studying Kannada-speaking bilingual adults.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Sahana et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: