Conceptual scoring removes the monolingual-simultaneous-bilingual gap in English receptive vocabulary but not in English expressive vocabulary¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associational r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 With conceptual scoring, simultaneous bilinguals' English receptive scores did not differ from monolinguals', while sequential bilinguals remained significantly lower. → Gross Megan 2014 q3 i3 With conceptual scoring on English expressive vocabulary, monolinguals still outperformed both bilingual groups. → Gross Megan 2014 (2)

Evidence¶

Gross Megan 2014¶

Gross Megan, Buac Milijana, Kaushanskaya Margarita. (2014). Conceptual scoring of receptive and expressive vocabulary measures in simultaneous and sequential bilingual children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_AJSLP-13-0026

q3 · i3 · associational · r2

ANCOVA of English receptive conceptual scores (missed PPVT items re-administered in Spanish) with SES covariate; significant group effect (ηp2 = .16), the monolingual-simultaneous contrast not significant (p = .375) while sequential bilinguals remained lower, as quoted.

"A significant main effect of group was obtained using conceptual scores, F (2, 93) = 8.6, p < .001, ηp2 = .16. Follow-up comparisons revealed that the simultaneous bilinguals’ conceptual scores did not differ from the monolinguals’ scores, p = .375. Sequential bilinguals’ conceptual scores were significantly lower than monolinguals’ scores, p < .001, and simultaneous bilinguals’ conceptual scores, p = .008."

Gross Megan 2014 (2)¶

Gross Megan, Buac Milijana, Kaushanskaya Margarita. (2014). Conceptual scoring of receptive and expressive vocabulary measures in simultaneous and sequential bilingual children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology. https://doi.org/10.1044/2014_AJSLP-13-0026

q3 · i3 · associational · r2

ANCOVA of English expressive conceptual scores with SES covariate; significant group effect (ηp2 = .23), monolinguals outperformed both bilingual groups (both p < .001), so conceptual scoring did not close the expressive gap for either group.

"A significant main effect of group was obtained using conceptual scores, F (2, 93) = 13.7, p < .001, ηp2 = .23. Monolinguals outperformed both the simultaneous bilinguals, p < .001, and the sequential bilinguals, p < .001, but the difference between the two bilingual groups was not significant, p = .529."

Discussion¶

Learner Variables¶

• Reading and Language — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes

Related Claims¶

• Sequential bilinguals score significantly below monolinguals on English vocabulary even with conceptual scoring and SES controlled — related
• Controlling for SES, monolingual children outperform both simultaneous and sequential bilinguals on single-language English receptive and expressive vocabulary measures — related
• Conceptual scoring increases the proportion of typically-developing bilingual children classified within the average range on every vocabulary measure — related
• Conceptual scoring significantly raises bilingual children's standardized vocabulary scores, an effect not modulated by test language, modality, or acquisition history once SES is controlled — related
• Bilingual children score higher in English than Spanish, with the language effect larger in the expressive modality — related