Language × Age interactions show bilingual preschoolers had the lowest MLUm, NDW, and SI scores, while bilingual school-age children produced the most fragments¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r1 · q3
Currency · newest study 2026 · checked against its sources 2026-10-20 (automated, 1 of 1 entry) · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

Reading the evidence codes

q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.

This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.

q3 i? The Language × Age interaction was significant for SI and neared significance for MLUm, NDW, and fragments, with bilingual preschoolers lowest on MLUm, NDW, and SI. → Hayes 2026 q3 i? Bilingual school-age children produced significantly more fragments than both preschool groups. → Hayes 2026

Evidence¶

Hayes 2026¶

Hayes, R. L., and Kan, P. F. (2026). Shared and divergent patterns in narrative skills: comparing English monolingual and Japanese–English bilingual children. Frontiers in Psychology. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1747702

q3 · i? · associational · r1

ANOVA results for 56 children with Tukey HSD post-hoc tests. For SI, "the interaction between Language and Age group being significant, p < 0.05"; post-hocs showed bilingual preschoolers (M = 0.99) below bilingual school-age (M = 1.19) and monolingual school-age (M = 1.14). Fragments: bilingual school-age (M = 1.43) exceeded both preschool groups.

"SI was significant, F(3, 52) = 6.37, p < 0.001, R2 = 0.27, with Language group not being significant, p = 0.36, and Age group, p < 0.01, and the interaction between Language and Age group being significant, p < 0.05."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

Reading and Language — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
Age and Developmental Stage — moderator: an instructional effect differs with it

All narrative microstructure measures increase with age group, but only lexical diversity (NDW) differs between Japanese–English bilingual and English monolingual children — related
No macrostructure measure differs significantly between bilingual and monolingual children, while age improves story structure, internal state terms, comprehension, and aggregate scores but not structural complexity — related
All children retold MAIN episode one with the most complexity and episode two with the least, regardless of age or language group — related
Bilingual school-age children's microstructure converged with monolinguals', consistent with bilinguals exceeding the ~60% input benchmark for typical development — related
Bilingual children acquire vocabulary and syntax in each language more slowly than monolingual children, yet show cognitive advantages and can match or surpass monolingual peers with support — a broader claim this one bears on
Socioeconomic status differences between bilingual and monolingual groups may determine study outcomes — related

Page metadata

Field	Value
`type`	`claim`
`id`	`bilingual-preschoolers-lowest-microstructure-interactions`
`title`	`Language × Age interactions show bilingual preschoolers had the lowest MLUm, NDW, and SI scores, while bilingual school-age children produced the most fragments`
`description`	`Language × Age interactions show bilingual preschoolers had the lowest MLUm, NDW, and SI scores, while bilingual school-age children produced the most fragments`
`status`	`review`
`evidence_strength`	`moderate`
`newest_evidence`	`2026`
`source_checked`	`2026-10-20`
`generated`	by `process:wiki-ingest` on `2026-09-26`
`trust`	unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content
`sources`	1 — `hayes-2026`

Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.