Do vocabulary skills in infancy predict reading and language skills in later childhood? Fiona Duff Gurpreet 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 Oxford Communicative Development Inventory Parental checklist of infants knowledge of 416 words Standardised on 669 British infants (Hamilton et al., 2000) Comprehension Production 319 200 127 16 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 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 75 55 85 66 19 5;02 (0;04) 6;00 (0;05) 6;11 (0;05) 8;00 (0;05) 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) Participants at School-Age School-Age Measures Receptive vocab Expressive vocab Phonological deletion Nonword reading Regular word reading Exception word reading Word reading accuracy Prose reading accuracy Reading comprehension Nonverbal IQ N 298 300 298 300 300 300 300 225 226 298
0 0 0 4 9 18 Max 135 122 20 30 30 30 90 77 79 135 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/
Chi-square test of model fit: 2 (26) = 44.87 p = .012 CF1 = .989; RMSEA = .049 .81 .56 .81 Passage 2 .78 Reading comprehension .82 Interim Summary Infant vocabulary is a significant predictor of schoolage 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 Language Risk: 98 No Language Risk: 9 Yes Totals 105 Reading Risk: Totals Yes 29 125 5 14 34 139 Receptive
Phonological awareness .49 -.15 .94 .38 -.16 Nonwords Regulars Reading accuracy -.32 .36 .79 Passage 1 -.34 N = 300 Chi-square test of model fit: 2 (31) = 48.58, p = .023
CF1 = .989; RMSEA = .043 .79 .84 .55 .93 .97 .86 Family risk Exceptions .78 Passage 2 .77 Reading comprehension .70 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 Acknowledgements
Julia Dilnot, University of Cambridge Jane Ralph, University of Oxford Dr Suzy Styles, Technical University, Singapore Professor Dorothy Bishop, University of Oxford Professor Charles Hulme, UCL Schools, families and children
Err on the side of caution and safety. Assessment, and the need for referral, depends on the degree to which the symptoms are interfering with daily life functioning, how well the individual is managing his or her symptoms, and how...
Estos resultados de ARIEL3 se presentaron previamente en la Reunión Anual de la ASCO, 31 de mayo-4 de junio de 2019, Chicago, IL, EE. UU. Este estudio ha recibido financiación de Clovis Oncology, Inc. La redacción médica y ayuda editorial...
*Cambourne, Brian. "Toward an Educationally Relevant Theory of Literacy Learning: Twenty Years of Inquiry." Reading Teacher . 49(3): 182-190). Factors that Contribute to Successful Learning. Employment - giving students time to practice their skills.
Coin termed by Geoff Layer and his colleagues at Bradford 'OUTduction' starts during INduction when students are introduced to the key skills and knowledge they will build upon and utilise during and post study'. ... Supporting Student Transitions part 1...
Ready to download the document? Go ahead and hit continue!