Discourse-level oral language is directly predicted by theory of mind, vocabulary, and working memory, but not inference or grammatical knowledge, in Grade 1¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associationalr2·q2
Currency · newest study 2017 · checked against its sources 2026-10-24 (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.
q2 i? In the direct and mediated model of discourse-level language, theory of mind, vocabulary, and working memory were directly related to discourse-level oral language, whereas inference and grammatical knowledge were not; the model explained approximately 61% of variance. → Kim Young-Suk Grace 2017
Evidence¶
Kim Young-Suk Grace 2017¶
Kim Young-Suk Grace, Schatschneider Christopher. (2017). Expanding the developmental models of writing: A direct and indirect effects model of developmental writing (DIEW). Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000129
q2 · i? · associational · r2
Structural equation modeling of the direct and mediated model of discourse-level language (Figure 1) fit the data very well (CFI = 1.00, RMSEA = .048) for 193 Grade 1 children; approximately 61% of total variance in discourse-level oral language was explained. Inference 'did not quite reach the conventional statistical significance (p = .058).'
"theory of mind (β = .27, p = .003), vocabulary (γ = .26, p = .007), and working memory (γ = .18, p = .02) were directly related to discourse-level oral language, whereas inference (β = .19, p = .058) and grammatical knowledge (γ = .08, p = .39) were not."
Discussion¶
Learner Variables¶
- Oral Language — outcome: instruction changes it
- Reading and Language — outcome: instruction changes it
- Syntax — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
- Vocabulary — predictor: learners who differ on it differ in outcomes
Related Claims¶
- Total effects on writing quality are largest for discourse-level oral language (.46), working memory (.43), and spelling (.37) — related
- Discourse-level oral language, spelling, and handwriting fluency completely mediate the relations of language and cognitive skills to writing quality in Grade 1 — related
- Inference, but not theory of mind, is independently related to writing quality after accounting for transcription skills and working memory — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
discourse-oral-language-predicted-by-tom-vocabulary-working-memory |
title |
Discourse-level oral language is directly predicted by theory of mind, vocabulary, and working memory, but not inference or grammatical knowledge, in Grade 1 |
description |
Discourse-level oral language is directly predicted by theory of mind, vocabulary, and working memory, but not inference or grammatical knowledge, in Grade 1 |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2017 |
source_checked |
2026-10-24 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-24 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
1 — kim-young-suk-grace-2017 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.