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¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · causal r1 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2014 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Across both bilingual groups, conceptual scoring yielded higher adjusted scores than language-specific scoring. → Gross Megan 2014 q3 i? Interactions between scoring method and modality, language, and group were not significant, indicating these variables did not significantly modulate the conceptual-scoring effect. → 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 · causal · r1

Repeated-measures ANCOVA on the two bilingual groups (39 simultaneous, 19 sequential) with scoring method, modality, test language as within-subject factors, group as between-subjects, SES covariate; large scoring-method effect (ηp2 = .31), adjusted means rising from 90.5 to 102.4.

"There was a significant main effect of scoring method, F (1, 47) = 28.2, p < .001, ηp2 = .31. Overall, children received significantly higher scores with conceptual scoring (Madjusted marginal = 102.4, SE = 1.5) than with language-specific scoring (Madjusted marginal = 90.5, SE = 1.6)."

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 · i? · causal · r1

Same repeated-measures ANCOVA; all scoring-method interactions were non-significant (ps > .1). Equivalence was not tested; the null interactions indicate no detected modulation once SES was controlled.

"The interactions between scoring method and the other variables under consideration (modality, language, group) were not significant (all ps > .1), indicating that these variables did not significantly modulate the effects of conceptual scoring, once SES was taken into account."

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• Conceptual scoring removes the monolingual-simultaneous-bilingual gap in English receptive vocabulary but not in English expressive vocabulary — related
• Conceptual scoring increases the proportion of typically-developing bilingual children classified within the average range on every vocabulary measure — related
• 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