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 calonzo@mghihp.edu

ASHA Convention 2015 Denver, CO