No common underlying proficiency emerges for oral language: bifactor models of expressive and definitional vocabulary did not converge¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · associationalr2–r3·q3
Currency · newest study 2017 · not yet checked against its sources · 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? Bifactor models of expressive and definitional vocabulary did not converge, indicating English and Spanish vocabulary items measured only language-specific variance. → Goodrich J. Marc 2017
q3 i? Expressive vocabulary factors correlated negatively across languages (r = −.12, p < .05) and definitional vocabulary factors were uncorrelated (r = −.02, p = .72). → Goodrich J. Marc 2017 (2)
Evidence¶
Goodrich J. Marc 2017¶
Goodrich J. Marc, Lonigan Christopher J. (2017). Language-Independent and Language-Specific Aspects of Early Literacy: An Evaluation of the Common Underlying Proficiency Model. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000179
q3 · i? · associational · r2
Confirmatory factor analysis of vocabulary items from the TOPEL and Pre-CTOPPP-Spanish in 858 language-minority preschoolers; "A bifactor model of expressive vocabulary did not converge". The definitional vocabulary bifactor model also did not converge.
"A bifactor model of expressive vocabulary did not converge, indicating that English and Spanish expressive vocabulary items only measured variance unique to the language of the item."
Goodrich J. Marc 2017 (2)¶
Goodrich J. Marc, Lonigan Christopher J. (2017). Language-Independent and Language-Specific Aspects of Early Literacy: An Evaluation of the Common Underlying Proficiency Model. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000179
q3 · i? · associational · r3
Two-factor model results for expressive vocabulary; "The correlation between the English and Spanish Expressive Vocabulary factors was negative and statistically significant (r = −.12, p < .05)". Definitional vocabulary correlation was not statistically significant.
"The correlation between the English and Spanish Expressive Vocabulary factors was negative and statistically significant (r = −.12, p < .05)."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Spanish-speaking language-minority preschoolers show a common underlying proficiency for phonological awareness, with bifactor models fitting better than correlated-factors models — related
- A common underlying proficiency exists for print knowledge, and it accounted for more variance than for phonological awareness, contrary to the authors' hypothesis — related
- Higher order cognitive skills (inference, perspective taking, comprehension monitoring) fit a bifactor structure with a general cross-language factor and language-specific factors in English and Spanish — related
- A bifactor model of oral language and reading fits better than one-, three-, and four-factor models in every grade from 4th through 10th — related
- Specific syntax and vocabulary factors uniquely predicted reading comprehension in only one grade each (syntax in 4th, vocabulary in 7th) — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
no-common-underlying-proficiency-oral-language |
title |
No common underlying proficiency emerges for oral language: bifactor models of expressive and definitional vocabulary did not converge |
description |
No common underlying proficiency emerges for oral language: bifactor models of expressive and definitional vocabulary did not converge |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2017 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-24 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — goodrich-j-marc-2017, goodrich-j-marc-2017-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.