ASHA 2015 Poster draft_IHP_final
1
Predicting Second Grade Listening Comprehension Using Preschool Measures Crystle Alonzo 1 , Tiffany P. Hogan 1 , Gloria Yeomans-Maldonado 2 , Kimberly Murphy 2 , Beau Bevens 1 , KaRynn Sheranian 1 , & Language and Reading Research Consortium (LARRC) MGH Institute of Health Professions 1 The Ohio State University 2 Table 3A. Model results for Pre-K predicting grade 2 listening comprehension Model 1 Model 2 Estimate p-value Relative Importance (variance decomposition) Estimate p-value Relative Importance (variance decomposition) Intercept -5.861 0.021 --- -5.618 0.035 --- Mother's Ed. 0.034 0.754 0.011 0.053 0.639 0.014 Age in months -0.059 0.153 0.004 -0.056 0.195 0.004 KBIT-2 0.014 0.747 0.014 0.040 0.369 0.018 TNL 0.350 0.000* 0.083 0.127 0.001* 0.108 CELF-4:USP 0.081 0.037* 0.079 --- --- --- LCM 0.188 0.023* 0.080 --- --- --- CELF-4:WS 0.029 0.457 0.043 0.0505 0.220 0.055 CELF-4:RS 0.026 0.148 0.066 0.0364 0.047* 0.085 PPVT-4 0.010 0.418 0.044 0.0111 0.409 0.055 EVT-2 0.025 0.145 0.055 0.0293 0.107 0.069 INFT 0.074 0.914 0.049 0.9374 0.153 0.069 WJ:AM 0.003 0.942 0.020 0.0209 0.617 0.026 R 2 0.548 0.505 Table 3B. Reduced model results for Pre-K predicting grade 2 listening comprehension Model 3 Model 4 Estimate p-value Relative Importance (variance decomposition) Estimate p-value Relative Importance (variance decomposition) Intercept -5.421 0.015 --- -5.940 0.013 --- Mother's Ed. 0.126 0.204 0.031 0.189 0.074 0.042 Age in months -0.028 0.446 0.005 -0.010 0.797 0.006 KBIT-2 0.072 0.057 0.038 0.091 0.024* 0.051 TNL 0.193 <.0001* 0.217 --- --- --- CELF-4:RS 0.067 <.0001* 0.183 0.120 <.0001* 0.296 R 2 0.473 0.395 Methods Procedures: Measures were administered every school year in several sessions between January and May by trained research staff to the 318 participants (Table 1). A subset of measures from LARRC were used for the present study, including measures of listening and reading comprehension, language, memory, and cognition (Table 2). Table 1. Participant Descriptive Statistics (n= 318) Female Age in Months White Home Language English Mother’s Ed.- college degree or higher Overall Sample 43.08% 61 (SD= 3.81) 93.08% 91.19% 62.89% Introduction Purpose: Using data from the Language and Reading Research Consortium’s (LARRC) national, multi-site, 5-year longitudinal study of reading and listening comprehension in Pre-K to grade 3 we aimed to identify the best Pre-K language and cognitive predictors of listening comprehension skill in grade 2. • Early identification of later reading impairments is important to providing early intervention, especially for a unique group of children, Poor Comprehenders, who have comprehension difficulties in the absence of word-reading difficulties (Catts, et al., 2006 and Nation, et al., 1999) • Listening comprehension affects reading comprehension directly, as outlined in the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tumner, 1986), and indirectly through other literacy skills such as vocabulary and discourse (Kendeou, et al., 2009; LARRC, 2015). • There is a paucity in the literature on early predictors of later listening comprehension. Those studies that have examined possible predictors of listening comprehension have found the following candidates: Reasoning, Fluency, Working Memory, Vocabulary Knowledge, Inference-Making, and Grammatical Knowledge (Tighe, et al., 2015; Florit, et al., 2009 & 2013; and Muter, et al., 2004). Analysis & Results Step 1 : Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) aided in selection of the Pre-K measures that were included in the model for predicting listening comprehension in grade 2, using three latent constructs (Figure 1): lower-level language, discourse, and memory and a cut point of .70 or higher (Comrey & Lee, 1992). Step 2 : Linear Multiple Regression (LMR) followed by relative importance analyses determined which Pre-K measures predicted listening comprehension in grade 2 based on the CFA. Our dependent variable was a Grade 2 Listening Comprehension Factor Score (CELF-USP + TNL + LCM) (Table 3A and Table 3B) In Model 1 (Full set of predictors) : • Each of the three Pre-K listening comprehension measures explained between 7.9% and 8.3% of the variance. Together, they explained 24.2% • Overall, this model explained 54.8% of the variance of 2 nd grade listening comprehension In Model 2 (USP & LCM predictors removed): • TNL explained 10.8% of the total variance and CELF-RS explained 8.5% • Overall, this model explained about 50.5% of the variance In Model 3 (TNL & CELF-RS predictors only): • TNL explained 21.7% of the total variance and CELF-RS explained 18.3% • Overall, this model explained 47.3% of the variance In Model 4 (CELF-RS predictor only): • CELF-RS explained 29.6% of the total variance while non-verbal intelligence explained 5.1% • Overall, this model explained 39.5% of the variance Figure 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis results. Bold indicates the selected predictors of Grade 2 Listening Comprehension above the .70 criterion for selection, with the exception of WJ:AM Discussion The results of this study support the following conclusions: 1. Listening comprehension is fairly stable across time from Pre-K to Grade 2. 2. Besides measures of listening comprehension, the only other Pre-K language-related measure that was predictive of grade 2 listening comprehension was CELF-Recalling Sentences. Depending on the model, this measure was responsible for explaining between 6.6% and 29.6% of the variance in grade 2 listening comprehension. The TNL and CELF-RS – assessments widely used by clinicians - were the best Pre-K predictors, accounting for 47% of the variance of Grade 2 listening comprehension. 3. Our results show that CELF-Recalling Sentences contributed to the Memory construct instead of the Language construct. Table 2. Measures Lower Level Language Discourse Memory Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals –4 th Ed - Word Structure (CELF-4:WS) Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – 3rd Ed - Picture Arrangement Task (PAT) Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities – Auditory Working Memory (WJ:AM) Rice/Wexler Test of Early Grammatical Impairment – Third Person Singular (TEG:S) Comprehension Monitoring – Knowledge Violations Task (KVT) Nonword Repetition Task (NRT) TEGI – Past Tense (TEG:T) Inference Task (INFT) Memory Updating (MU) Test for Reception of Grammar – Version 2 (TROG) CELF-4 - Understanding Spoken Paragraphs (CELF-4:USP) CELF-4 – Recalling Sentences (CELF-4:RS) CELF-4 – Word Classes (CELF-4:WC) Test of Narrative Language (TNL) Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test – 4th Ed (PPVT-4) Listening Comprehension Measure (LCM) Expressive Vocabulary Test – 2nd Ed (EVT-2) Acknowledgements We thank all of the assessors, teachers, students, and families who participated in this study. This research was funded by the Institute of Education Sciences’ Reading for Understanding Initiative (Grant #R305F100002) Contact: Crystle Alonzo [email protected] ASHA Convention 2015 Denver, CO
-
Upload
karynn-sheranian -
Category
Documents
-
view
74 -
download
3
Transcript of ASHA 2015 Poster draft_IHP_final
Predicting Second Grade Listening Comprehension Using Preschool MeasuresCrystle Alonzo1, Tiffany P. Hogan1, Gloria Yeomans-Maldonado2, Kimberly Murphy2, Beau Bevens1,
KaRynn Sheranian1, & Language and Reading Research Consortium (LARRC)MGH Institute of Health Professions1 The Ohio State University2
Table 3A. Model results for Pre-K predicting grade 2 listening comprehension
Model 1 Model 2
Estimate p-value
Relative
Importance
(variance
decomposition)
Estimate p-value
Relative
Importance
(variance
decomposition)
Intercept -5.861 0.021 --- -5.618 0.035 ---
Mother's Ed. 0.034 0.754 0.011 0.053 0.639 0.014
Age in months -0.059 0.153 0.004 -0.056 0.195 0.004
KBIT-2 0.014 0.747 0.014 0.040 0.369 0.018
TNL 0.350 0.000* 0.083 0.127 0.001* 0.108CELF-4:USP 0.081 0.037* 0.079 --- --- ---
LCM 0.188 0.023* 0.080 --- --- ---
CELF-4:WS 0.029 0.457 0.043 0.0505 0.220 0.055
CELF-4:RS 0.026 0.148 0.066 0.0364 0.047* 0.085PPVT-4 0.010 0.418 0.044 0.0111 0.409 0.055
EVT-2 0.025 0.145 0.055 0.0293 0.107 0.069
INFT 0.074 0.914 0.049 0.9374 0.153 0.069
WJ:AM 0.003 0.942 0.020 0.0209 0.617 0.026
R2 0.548 0.505
Table 3B. Reduced model results for Pre-K predicting grade 2 listening
comprehension
Model 3 Model 4
Estimate p-value
Relative
Importance
(variance
decomposition)
Estimate p-value
Relative
Importance
(variance
decomposition)
Intercept -5.421 0.015 --- -5.940 0.013 ---
Mother's Ed. 0.126 0.204 0.031 0.189 0.074 0.042
Age in months -0.028 0.446 0.005 -0.010 0.797 0.006
KBIT-2 0.072 0.057 0.038 0.091 0.024* 0.051TNL 0.193 <.0001* 0.217 --- --- ---
CELF-4:RS 0.067 <.0001* 0.183 0.120 <.0001* 0.296R2 0.473 0.395
MethodsProcedures: Measures were administered every school year in several sessions between January and May by trained research staff to the 318 participants (Table 1). A subset of measures from LARRC were used for the present study, including measures of listening and reading comprehension, language, memory, and cognition (Table 2).
Table 1. Participant Descriptive Statistics (n= 318)
FemaleAge in
MonthsWhite
Home Language
English
Mother’s Ed.-college degree
or higher
Overall Sample 43.08% 61 (SD= 3.81) 93.08% 91.19% 62.89%
IntroductionPurpose: Using data from the Language and Reading Research Consortium’s (LARRC)national, multi-site, 5-year longitudinal study of reading and listening comprehension in Pre-K to grade 3 we aimed to identify the best Pre-K language and cognitive predictors of listening comprehension skill in grade 2. • Early identification of later reading impairments is important to providing early
intervention, especially for a unique group of children, Poor Comprehenders, who have comprehension difficulties in the absence of word-reading difficulties (Catts, et al., 2006 and Nation, et al., 1999)
• Listening comprehension affects reading comprehension directly, as outlined in the Simple View of Reading (Gough & Tumner, 1986), and indirectly through other literacy skills such as vocabulary and discourse (Kendeou, et al., 2009; LARRC, 2015).
• There is a paucity in the literature on early predictors of later listening comprehension. Those studies that have examined possible predictors of listening comprehension have found the following candidates: Reasoning, Fluency, Working Memory, Vocabulary Knowledge, Inference-Making, and Grammatical Knowledge (Tighe, et al., 2015; Florit, et al., 2009 & 2013; and Muter, et al., 2004).
Analysis & ResultsStep 1: Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) aided in selection of the Pre-K measures that were included in the model for predicting listening comprehension in grade 2, using three latent constructs (Figure 1): lower-level language, discourse, and memory and a cut point of .70 or higher (Comrey & Lee, 1992).Step 2: Linear Multiple Regression (LMR) followed by relative importance analyses determined which Pre-K measures predicted listening comprehension in grade 2 based on the CFA. Our dependent variable was a Grade 2 Listening Comprehension Factor Score (CELF-USP + TNL + LCM) (Table 3A and Table 3B)
In Model 1 (Full set of predictors): • Each of the three Pre-K listening comprehension measures explained between 7.9%
and 8.3% of the variance. Together, they explained 24.2%• Overall, this model explained 54.8% of the variance of 2nd grade listening
comprehensionIn Model 2 (USP & LCM predictors removed):• TNL explained 10.8% of the total variance and CELF-RS explained 8.5%• Overall, this model explained about 50.5% of the variance
In Model 3 (TNL & CELF-RS predictors only):• TNL explained 21.7% of the total variance and CELF-RS explained 18.3%• Overall, this model explained 47.3% of the variance
In Model 4 (CELF-RS predictor only):• CELF-RS explained 29.6% of the total variance while non-verbal intelligence
explained 5.1%• Overall, this model explained 39.5% of the variance
Figure 1. Confirmatory Factor Analysis results. Bold indicates the selected predictors of Grade 2 Listening Comprehension above the .70 criterion for selection, with the exception of WJ:AM
DiscussionThe results of this study support the following conclusions:1. Listening comprehension is fairly stable across time from Pre-K to Grade 2.2. Besides measures of listening comprehension, the only other Pre-K language-related
measure that was predictive of grade 2 listening comprehension was CELF-Recalling Sentences. Depending on the model, this measure was responsible for explaining between 6.6% and 29.6% of the variance in grade 2 listening comprehension. The TNL and CELF-RS – assessments widely used by clinicians - were the best Pre-K predictors, accounting for 47% of the variance of Grade 2 listening comprehension.
3. Our results show that CELF-Recalling Sentences contributed to the Memory construct instead of the Language construct.
Table 2. Measures
Lower Level Language Discourse Memory
Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals – 4th Ed - Word Structure (CELF-4:WS)
Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children – 3rd Ed - Picture Arrangement Task (PAT)
Woodcock Johnson III Tests of Cognitive Abilities – Auditory Working Memory (WJ:AM)
Rice/Wexler Test of Early Grammatical Impairment – Third Person Singular (TEG:S)
Comprehension Monitoring –Knowledge Violations Task (KVT)
Nonword Repetition Task (NRT)
TEGI – Past Tense (TEG:T) Inference Task (INFT) Memory Updating (MU)
Test for Reception of Grammar –Version 2 (TROG)
CELF-4 - Understanding Spoken Paragraphs (CELF-4:USP)
CELF-4 – Recalling Sentences (CELF-4:RS)
CELF-4 – Word Classes (CELF-4:WC) Test of Narrative Language (TNL)
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test –4th Ed (PPVT-4)
Listening Comprehension Measure (LCM)
Expressive Vocabulary Test – 2nd Ed (EVT-2)
AcknowledgementsWe thank all of the assessors, teachers, students, and families who participated in this study. This research was funded by the Institute of Education Sciences’ Reading for Understanding Initiative (Grant #R305F100002)
Contact: Crystle Alonzo [email protected]
ASHA Convention 2015 Denver, CO
