1. Predicting Second Grade Listening Comprehension Using Preschool Measures
Crystle 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* 0.108
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
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* 0.051
TNL 0.193 <.0001* 0.217 --- --- ---
CELF-4:RS 0.067 <.0001* 0.183 0.120 <.0001* 0.296
R2
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 2nd 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 – 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)
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
calonzo@mghihp.edu
ASHA Convention 2015 Denver, CO