Do vocabulary skills in infancy predict reading and language skills in later childhood? Fiona Duff...
-
Upload
calvin-garrett -
Category
Documents
-
view
221 -
download
0
Transcript of Do vocabulary skills in infancy predict reading and language skills in later childhood? Fiona Duff...
Do vocabulary skills in infancy predict reading and language skills
in later childhood?
Fiona DuffGurpreet Reen, Kim Plunkett, Kate Nation
Language for Reading
decoding × linguistic comprehension = reading comprehension
nonphonological language Clarke et al. (2010)
phonological language Hulme et al. (2012)
Language for Reading
decoding × linguistic comprehension = reading comprehension
nonphonological language Clarke et al. (2010)
phonological language Hulme et al. (2012)
Research Questions
• If vocabulary predicts reading, vocabulary deficits signal risk of later reading difficulties– Is there a relationship between infant vocabulary
and later literacy?– Could infant vocabulary deficits be used to
identify children at risk of reading difficulties?
Infant vocabulary
School-age language/
literacy
Measuring Vocabulary
Comprehension Production
319
127
200
16
• Oxford Communicative Development Inventory– Parental checklist of infants’ knowledge of 416 words– Standardised on 669 British infants (Hamilton et al., 2000)
Participants in Infancy
Correlation between CDIs at t1 and t2 (n=100): Comp. = .75, Prod. = .70 (p < .001)
Participants at School-Age
• 300 children in ≈150 schools
Year N Age (SD)
Reception 75 5;02 (0;04)Year 1 55 6;00 (0;05)Year 2 85 6;11 (0;05)Year 3 66 8;00 (0;05)Year 4 19 9;00 (0;03)
School-Age Test Battery
• Language – Receptive vocabulary (ROWPVT)– Expressive vocabulary (EOWPVT)– Phonological deletion (CTOPP Elision)
• Reading– Reading accuracy (DTWRP)– Reading comprehension (YARC)
• General cognitive ability– Nonverbal reasoning (BAS-II Matrices)
School-Age Measures
N Mean SD Min MaxReceptive vocab 298 88.49 17.57 35 135Expressive vocab 300 79.77 17.78 30 122Phonological deletion 298 9.74 5.21 0 20Nonword reading 300 14.76 8.81 0 30Regular word reading 300 18.42 9.63 0 30Exception word reading 300 15.21 10.13 0 30Word reading accuracy 300 48.39 27.73 0 90Prose reading accuracy 225 48.54 12.13 4 77Reading comprehension 226 57.97 11.63 9 79Nonverbal IQ 298 79.42 22.64 18 135
Research Questions
• If vocabulary predicts reading, vocabulary deficits signal risk of later reading difficulties– Is there a relationship between infant vocabulary
and later literacy?
Infant vocabulary
School-age language/
literacy
Infant vocabulary
Comprehension Production
.72 .79
Vocabulary
Receptive Expressive
.73 .84
Phonological awareness
Reading accuracy
Nonwords Regulars Exceptions
.86 .97 .93
Reading comprehension
Passage 1 Passage 2
.79 .78
.29
.56
.81
.49
.38
.81
Infant vocabulary
Comprehension Production
.72 .79
Vocabulary
Receptive Expressive
.73 .84
Phonological awareness
Reading accuracy
Nonwords Regulars Exceptions
.86 .97 .93
Reading comprehension
Passage 1 Passage 2
.79 .78
.29
.56
.81
.49
.38
.81
Infant vocabulary
Comprehension Production
.72 .79 .40
.21
.33
.43
Vocabulary
Receptive Expressive
.73 .84
Phonological awareness
Reading accuracy
Nonwords Regulars Exceptions
.86 .97 .93
Reading comprehension
Passage 1 Passage 2
.79 .78
.29
.56
.81
.49
.38
.81
Infant vocabulary
Comprehension Production
.72 .79 .40
.21
.33
.43
Vocabulary
Receptive Expressive
.73 .84
.84
Phonological awareness
.96
Reading accuracy
Nonwords Regulars Exceptions
.86 .97 .93
.89
Reading comprehension
Passage 1 Passage 2
.79 .78
.82
N = 300Chi-square test of model fit:χ2 (26) = 44.87 p = .012CF1 = .989; RMSEA = .049
Interim Summary
• Infant vocabulary is a significant predictor of school-age outcomes, accounting for:− 4% variance in phoneme awareness− 11% variance in reading accuracy− 16% variance in vocabulary− 18% variance in reading comprehension
• However, it is not a sufficient predictor• What else can explain the remaining variance?
− Family-risk: a better predictor of language outcomes at 4 years than ‘late talker’ status at 18 months (Bishop et al., 2012)
Family-Risk
• Family-risk (FR) questionnaire− First degree relative with a reading or language difficulty
Reading Risk: No
Reading Risk: Yes
Totals
Language Risk: No
98 29 125
Language Risk: Yes
9 5 14
Totals 105 34 139
.28
.55
.78
.49
.36
.84
Family risk
Infant vocabulary
Comprehension Production
.71 .79
-.16
.38
.18
.28
.38
-.09
-.15
-.32
-.34
Vocabulary
Receptive Expressive
.74 .83
.84
Phonological awareness
.94
Reading accuracy
Nonwords Regulars Exceptions
.86 .97 .93
.79
Reading comprehension
Passage 1 Passage 2
.79 .77
.70
N = 300Chi-square test of model fit:χ2 (31) = 48.58, p = .023CF1 = .989; RMSEA = .043
Conclusions and Implications
• Infant vocabulary is a significant but not sufficient predictor of later reading and language outcomes
• Family-risk explains additional variance in reading but not language outcomes
• The two predictors explain:− 6% variance in phoneme awareness (cf. 4%)− 16% variance in vocabulary (cf. 16%)− 21% variance in reading accuracy (cf. 11%)− 30% variance in reading comprehension (cf. 18%)
Conclusions and Implications
• Caution against using parent report of vocabulary as sole predictor of outcomes, especially for language:− Low stability of vocabulary from pre-24 months to school-age− Around 70% of 18-month-old ‘late talkers’ resolve (Bishop et al., 2012)
• Prediction of reading risk increased if consider infant vocabulary with family history
• Future research needs to address:− What FR is tapping− Whether prediction is improved when language is measured
later on, more comprehensively, or more objectively