Preschool neurophysiological assessment predicts performance on phonological processing, rapid naming, sentence memory, sight word reading, spelling, and composite reading one year later¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 2 studies · 2 associational r1–r2 · q3 · i3 large
Currency · newest study 2015 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person · overdue for a recheck since 2018: tool and model accuracy changes quickly

Subclaims¶

q3 i3 Year 1 consonants-in-noise model predictions predicted Year 2 phonological processing (r[32] = 0.543), a second phonological test (r[32] = 0.575), rapid naming (r[32] = -0.663), and sentence memory (r[32] = 0.458). → White-Schwoch T 2015 q3 i3 Year 1 predictions also forecast Year 2 sight word reading (r[32] = 0.476), spelling (r[32] = 0.415), and composite reading (r[32] = 0.425). → White-Schwoch T 2015 (2)

Evidence¶

White-Schwoch T 2015¶

White-Schwoch T, Woodruff Carr K, Thompson EC, Anderson S, Nicol T, Bradlow AR, et al. (2015) Auditory Processing in Noise: A Preschool Biomarker for Literacy. PLoS Biol 13(7): e1002196. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002196

q3 · i3 · associational · r2

Longitudinal follow-up of 34 children (18 female) one year after neurophysiological assessment. Printed effect sizes include r = 0.575 (reported as r[32] = 0.575, p < .001) for the second phonological test, r = 0.543 for phonological processing, r = -0.663 for rapid naming, and r = 0.458 for sentence memory — all large correlations.

"Year 1 neurophysiological testing predicted future performance on the same test of phonological processing — including in children too young to take this test in Year 1 ( r[32] = 0.543, p = .001). These predictions generalized to future performance on a second test of phonological processing ( r[32] = 0.575, p < .001)"

White-Schwoch T 2015 (2)¶

White-Schwoch T, Woodruff Carr K, Thompson EC, Anderson S, Nicol T, Bradlow AR, et al. (2015) Auditory Processing in Noise: A Preschool Biomarker for Literacy. PLoS Biol 13(7): e1002196. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002196

q3 · i3 · associational · r1

In the same 34-child longitudinal cohort, Year 1 neural model predictions also predicted Year 2 early-literacy achievement: sight word reading with printed effect size r = 0.476 (reported as r[32] = 0.476, p = .004), spelling (r[32] = 0.415), and a composite reading score (r[32] = 0.425).

"Neurophysiological model predictions at Year 1 predicted future performance on sight word reading ( r[32] = 0.476, p = .004), spelling (r[32] = 0.415, p = .015), and a composite reading score ( r[32] = 0.425, p = .012"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• A consonants-in-noise model derived in 4-year-olds generalizes to predict rapid naming and sentence memory in preschoolers, though not sentence memory in 3-year-olds — related
• Neural coding of consonants in noise strongly predicts phonological processing in 4-year-old pre-readers over and above demographic factors — related
• The consonants-in-noise model predicts concurrent reading in school-aged children and reliably classifies externally diagnosed learning disability, being most effective at clearing children as unlikely to have an LD — related
• Children's early prephonological spelling statistics predict later conventional spelling success — related
• Use of consonantal context in vowel spelling develops gradually, emerging around age 8 and peaking around age 11 — related
• Reading for study produced a main memory advantage over reading for comprehension for target sentences — related