Comparing Children With and Without Learning Disabilities on Their Home Literacy Environment and Its Association With Pre-Reading Skills
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite children with learning disabilities (LDs) being at high risk for reading delays, how the informal home literacy environment (HLE) of LD children compares to that of their non-LD peers has not previously been investigated. Neither has the extent to which informal HLE is associated with pre-reading skills been compared for these two groups. To address these questions, we analyzed the data of 2,090 U.S. children with and without LDs from the nationally representative Early Childhood Longitudinal Study-Kindergarten Cohort of 2010-2011 (ECLS-K:2011). Children with LDs had a lower informal HLE the summer before kindergarten than those without LDs, although this difference was not independent of group differences in socioeconomic status (SES). Next, informal HLE was associated with pre-reading skills at the start of kindergarten comparably for children with and without LDs, and this remained true after accounting for SES. In conclusion, LD children experience lower informal HLE than their non-LD peers.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".