Correlates of Phonological Awareness in Preschoolers With Speech Sound Disorders
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to examine the relationships among variables that may contribute to poor phonological awareness (PA) skills in preschool-aged children with speech sound disorders (SSD). METHOD: Ninety-five 4- and 5-year-old children with SSD were assessed during the spring of their prekindergarten year. Linear structural equation modeling was used to compare the fit of 2 models of the possible relationships among PA, speech perception, articulation, receptive vocabulary, and emergent literacy skills. RESULTS: Half the children had significant difficulty with speech perception and PA despite demonstrating receptive language skills within or above the average range. The model that showed the best fit to the data indicated that speech perception is a pivotal variable that has a direct effect on PA and an indirect effect that is mediated by vocabulary skills. Articulation accuracy did not have a direct impact on PA. Emergent literacy skills were predicted by PA abilities. CONCLUSIONS: Children with SSD are at greatest risk of delayed PA skills if they have poor speech perception abilities and/or relatively poor receptive vocabulary skills. Children with SSD should receive assessments of their speech perception, receptive vocabulary, PA, and emergent literacy skills.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".