Predicting Vocabulary Development in Bilingual Children Using Early Measures of Word Comprehension
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objectives: Although prior research has found that vocabulary and speed of lexical access in toddlerhood predict language development later in childhood, whether relations are significant appears to depend on differences across studies in task and participant characteristics. The current study expands on these findings by comparing the relative predictive utility of vocabulary and two measures of speed of lexical access to later vocabulary development in simultaneous bilingual children. Methodology: Participants included 32 French-English bilingual children in a longitudinal cohort study tested at 23 months, age three, and age four. At 23 months, children completed a two-alternative forced choice measure of vocabulary from which we coded decontextualized receptive vocabulary, and speed of lexical access operationalized as visual response latency and haptic response latency. At ages three and four, children completed a standardized receptive vocabulary assessment.Data and Analysis: We examined the relation between 23-month predictors and outcomes using correlational and regression analyses.Findings/Conclusions: Decontextualized vocabulary at 23 months predicted vocabulary outcomes at ages three and four. Visual response latency predicted vocabulary at age three, but not age four. Haptic response latency predicted vocabulary at age four, but not age three. Neither vocabulary nor latency was significant when controlling for the effects of the other predictors.Originality: This is the first study to investigate the relation between multiple direct measures of vocabulary and lexical access and language outcomes in bilingual children.Significance/Implications: This study contributes to our understanding of toddler language measures and how demand characteristics interact with participant characteristics to influence the roles of these measures in predicting later outcomes. Limitations: Given the small sample size and limited outcome measures, results should be interpreted with some caution and used to guide future research on early predictors of long-term vocabulary development in bilingual children.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".