Learning to Read Project - PSY

Learning to Read Project - PSY

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

Mean 88.49 79.77 9.74 14.76 18.42 15.21 48.39 48.54 57.97 79.42 SD 17.57 17.78 5.21 8.81 9.63 10.13 27.73 12.13 11.63 22.64 Min 35 30 0 0

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/

literacy Receptive Expressive .73 .84 Vocabulary Comprehension .72 Production .79 Infant vocabulary Phonological awareness Nonwords Regulars Exceptions

.93 .97 .86 Reading accuracy Passage 1 .79 Passage 2 .78 Reading comprehension Receptive Expressive .73 .84 Vocabulary

Comprehension .72 Production .79 .29 Infant vocabulary Phonological awareness Nonwords .49 Regulars Exceptions .93 .97 .86

Reading accuracy Passage 1 .79 .81 .56 .38 Passage 2 .78 Reading comprehension .81 Receptive Expressive .73 .84

Vocabulary Comprehension .72 Production .79 .40 Infant vocabulary .21 .29 Phonological awareness .49 .33 .43 Nonwords Regulars

Exceptions .93 .97 .86 Reading accuracy Passage 1 .79 .81 .56 .38 Passage 2 .78 Reading comprehension .81

Receptive Expressive .73 .84 Vocabulary Comprehension .72 Production .84 .79 .40 Infant vocabulary .21 .29 Phonological

awareness .49 .33 .96 .43 Nonwords Regulars Exceptions .93 .97 .86 Reading accuracy .38 .89 Passage 1 .79 N = 300

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

Expressive .74 .83 Vocabulary Comprehension .71 Production .79 .38 Infant vocabulary .18 .28 .84 -.09 .28

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

Recently Viewed Presentations

  • This is Enlightenment - EMC

    This is Enlightenment - EMC

    This is Enlightenment From the Mediations of Enlightenment to Kant's essay "An Answer to the Question: What is Enlightenment?" (1784) IN: During medieval and Renaissance if you wanted to encounter strangers you had to go on the road or to...
  • Who Wants to Make a Million?

    Who Wants to Make a Million?

    Qui veut être millionnaire? Le passé composé. oul'imparfait? © Trainer Bubble
  • thekesterfamily.com

    thekesterfamily.com

    Sniper Defense. The Sniper Defense is a 4-3 base designed for flexibility in defending and attacking the offense. It is a blend of discipline and chaos. We must take away opponent
  • Locomotion in Birds III: Swimming &amp; Diving

    Locomotion in Birds III: Swimming & Diving

    Calibri Arial Office Theme Locomotion in Birds III: Swimming & Diving Swimming on the Surface Swimming Below the Surface Diving and swimming underwater Pelican Diving Adelie Penguin Swimming Underwater Why Swimmers Have Small Wings I Wing-molt stages of a Tufted...
  • Cs712 병렬처리특강 - 유비쿼터스 네트워크 및 보안

    Cs712 병렬처리특강 - 유비쿼터스 네트워크 및 보안

    Fault-tolerant Relay Node Placement in Heterogeneous Wireless Sensor Networks Xiaofeng Han, Xiang Cao, Errol L. Lloyd, and Chien-Chung Shen [Delaware University]
  • The Beginner&#x27;s Guide to Bad Engineering Presentations

    The Beginner's Guide to Bad Engineering Presentations

    (e.g., speedup vs. runtime) Don't just show the graph, talk about trends, meaning Bad Presentations Audience won't see your work as great But will make fun of you from the back row Good Presentations Interesting topic, explained at audience's level...
  • S12G1287. BROWN v. THE STATE ___ Ga ___, October 21, 2013

    S12G1287. BROWN v. THE STATE ___ Ga ___, October 21, 2013

    A13A0875. DRYER v. THE STATE, ___ Ga.App.___, August 21, 2013. Viewed in the light most favorable to the jury's verdict,1 the record shows that around 11:00 p.m. on April 4, 2010, a Douglasville police officer was patrolling the parking lot...
  • A Mathematical Formalism for AgentBased Modeling 22nd Mini-Conference

    A Mathematical Formalism for AgentBased Modeling 22nd Mini-Conference

    A Mathematical Formalism for Agent-Based Modeling 22nd Mini-Conference on Discrete Mathematics and Algorithms Clemson University October 11, 2007