Child Development, September/October 2015, Volume 86, Number 5, Pages 1351–1370

24-Month-Old Children With Larger Oral Vocabularies Display Greater

Academic and Behavioral Functioning at Kindergarten Entry
Paul L. Morgan George Farkas
The Pennsylvania State University University of California, Irvine

Marianne M. Hillemeier Carol Scheffner Hammer

The Pennsylvania State University Teachers College, Columbia University

Steve Maczuga
The Pennsylvania State University

Data were analyzed from a population-based, longitudinal sample of 8,650 U.S. children to (a) identify factors
associated with or predictive of oral vocabulary size at 24 months of age and (b) evaluate whether oral vocab-
ulary size is uniquely predictive of academic and behavioral functioning at kindergarten entry. Children from
higher socioeconomic status households, females, and those experiencing higher quality parenting had larger
oral vocabularies. Children born with very low birth weight or from households where the mother had health
problems had smaller oral vocabularies. Even after extensive covariate adjustment, 24-month-old children
with larger oral vocabularies displayed greater reading and mathematics achievement, increased behavioral
self-regulation, and fewer externalizing and internalizing problem behaviors at kindergarten entry.

Children with greater academic and behavioral 2013; Lesaux, 2012), and so reduce later achieve-
functioning at kindergarten entry often experience ment gaps and increase postsecondary education,
better educational and societal opportunities as they employment, productivity, and long-term wages
age (Duncan et al., 2007; Sabol & Pianta, 2012). For (e.g., Heckman & Masterov, 2007).
example, children entering kindergarten with Oral vocabulary is a malleable factor repeatedly
greater reading and mathematics achievement are theorized to contribute to increased academic and
more likely to attend college and enroll in higher behavioral functioning, and so might be targeted in
quality institutions. They are also more likely to early interventions (e.g., Dickinson, Golinkoff, &
own homes, have 401(k) savings, be married, and Hirsh-Pasek, 2010; Perfetti & Stafura, 2014; see
live in higher income neighborhoods as adults Appendix S1 in the online Supporting Information
(Chetty et al., 2011). Identifying factors contributing for further discussion of oral vocabulary terminol-
to greater academic and behavioral functioning at ogy). Oral vocabulary refers to the words children
kindergarten entry should help guide efforts to deli- use when speaking or recognize when listening.
ver early interventions to specific population sub- At-risk children’s oral vocabularies have been theo-
groups at risk for lower school functioning (Hoff, rized to constitute a “first-order” causal factor that,
if increased, may enhance their developmental tra-
Funding for this study was provided by the National Center jectories (Dickinson et al., 2010; Lesaux, 2012).
for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences,
U.S. Department of Education (R324A120046). Infrastructure sup-
port was provided by the Pennsylvania State University’s Popu- Oral Vocabulary’s Theorized Relation With Academic
lation Research Institute through funding from the National and Behavioral Functioning
Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National
Institutes of Health (R24HD041025). No official endorsement Theoretically, at about 24 months of age, acceler-
should thereby be inferred. We thank Bruce Tomblin, Philip
Dale, and Betsy Crais for their thoughtful suggestions on earlier ating growth in children’s lexicons overtaxes their
versions of this manuscript.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to
Paul L. Morgan, Department of Education Policy Studies, 300 © 2015 The Authors
Rackley Building, the Pennsylvania State University, University Child Development © 2015 Society for Research in Child Development, Inc.
Park, PA 16802. Electronic mail may be sent to paulmorgan@ All rights reserved. 0009-3920/2015/8605-0004
psu.edu. DOI: 10.1111/cdev.12398
1352 Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, Hammer, and Maczuga

protosyllabary (i.e., meaningless speech–motor presented in spoken or written stories, in part

patterns) and their use of word gestures (Levelt, because of a better understanding of abstract termi-
Roelofs, & Meyer, 1999). To more effectively com- nology (Davidse, De Jong, & Bus, 2014). A relation
municate, children are believed to rely increasingly between children’s oral vocabularies and mathemat-
on (a) phonemization, so that words begin to be ics achievement may emerge prior to school entry
represented by phonological segments, and (b) syn- (Purpura, Hume, Sims, & Lonigan, 2011).
tactization, in which lexical concepts begin to be A larger oral vocabulary should also result in
grouped by categories and subcategories. Use of greater behavioral functioning (e.g., Qi & Kaiser,
this dual-coding process, which is not necessarily 2004). Developmentally, this should occur as chil-
contingent on the “vocabulary spurt” that itself dren begin using words to monitor and modify
may not occur for most children (Ganger & Brent, their own behavior (Eisenberg, Sadovsky, & Spin-
2004) and can be explained by nonspecialized cog- rad, 2005). Young children should begin to adopt
nitive processes (McMurray, 2007), should allow their caregiver’s regulatory speech, which increas-
young children to begin associating particular pho- ingly emphasizes proactive or inhibitory rather than
netic encodings and articulations with specific lexi- soothing behaviors (Winsler, Diaz, McCarthy, Aten-
cal representations, thereby facilitating acquisition cio, & Chabay, 1999). Having a larger oral vocabu-
and use of an oral vocabulary of increasingly lary should provide children with both greater
greater size and complexity (Ouellette, 2006). symbolic representations of their internal states and
Acquiring a larger oral vocabulary should over better articulated frameworks for understanding
time result in greater reading achievement their experiences, resulting in greater ability to
(National Institute of Child Health and Human organize and guide actions, regulate emotions, and
Development [NICHD] Early Child Care Research self-verbalize problem-solving strategies (Cole,
Network, 2005; Perfetti & Stafura, 2014; Walker, Armstrong, & Pemberton, 2010). Observable indica-
Greenwood, Hart, & Carta, 1994) by facilitating lis- tors of greater behavioral self-regulation, or
tening comprehension (Hoover & Gough, 1990) as “approaches to learning,” include remaining atten-
well as decoding skills (Verhoeven, Leeuwe, & Ver- tive, persistent, flexible, engaged, and organized
meer, 2011). Children with larger oral vocabularies while completing classroom tasks (e.g., Li-Grining,
should more efficiently store words in their lexicons Votruba-Drzal, Maldonado-Carreno, & Haas, 2010).
as smaller segments, helping to increase their pho- Children’s language abilities and behavioral self-
nological sensitivity and, thus, their understanding regulation positively correlate as early as 24 months
of the alphabetic principle and decoding (Silven, of age (Vaughn, Kopp, & Krakow, 1984).
Poskiparta, Niemi, & Voeten, 2007). A larger oral A larger oral vocabulary should also facilitate
vocabulary should also result in more efficient children’s understanding and communication with
word identification (Perfetti & Hart, 2001), allowing adults and peers (Cole et al., 2010). Conversely,
children to better identify and understand partially children with smaller oral vocabularies should dis-
decoded, irregular or novel, or orthographically play more frequent externalizing or internalizing
complex words, and to infer spelling–sound rela- problem behaviors as they experience greater frus-
tions (Mitchell & Brady, 2013). (Eventually, the rela- tration and anger, lack of control of their environ-
tion between oral vocabulary and decoding ment, peer rejection, task avoidance, and
becomes bidirectional, as independent reading withdrawal (Menting, Van Lier, & Koot, 2010).
results in new vocabulary acquisition.) Having a smaller oral vocabulary positively cov-
A larger oral vocabulary is also theorized to aries with greater avoidance and acting out behav-
result in greater mathematics achievement (LeFevre iors in children as young as 24 months of age
et al., 2010). Children’s initial understanding of the (Rescorla, Ross, & McClure, 2007).
symbolic number system and its interrelations (e.g.,
number sequence, basic arithmetic and subtraction)
Methodological and Substantive Limitations of Extant
is thought to rely on language-based verbal associa-
Research
tions (e.g., Spelke & Tsivkin, 2001). Having a larger
oral vocabulary should result in children’s lexicons Currently, however, the extant work’s methodo-
including more words and phrases representing logical and substantive limitations constrain empiri-
abstract mathematical concepts, while also facilitat- cally derived conclusions as to oral vocabulary’s
ing more complex understanding of these concepts. theorized importance for children’s academic and
Children with larger oral vocabularies should more behavioral functioning generally and as a specific
easily understand and solve mathematics problems target of early intervention for at-risk populations.
 24-Month-Old Children’s Oral Vocabulary Knowledge 1353

For example, the National Early Literacy Panel relation between oral vocabulary size and children’s
(NELP; 2008) identified 11 factors considered pre- academic and behavioral functioning. For example,
dictive of conventional literacy and concluded that whether general cognitive functioning explains the
five were “moderately correlated with at least one relation between oral vocabulary and children’s
measure of later literacy achievement but either did academic achievement has yet to be firmly estab-
not maintain this predictive power when other lished (Rescorla et al., 2007). Although a predictive
important contextual variables were accounted for relation between oral vocabulary size and reading
or have not yet been evaluated by researchers in achievement has been repeatedly observed (e.g.,
this way” (p. viii). One of these five factors was NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2005;
oral language, including vocabulary. The NELP Storch & Whitehurst, 2002; Walker et al., 1994; see
(2008) suggested that future research evaluate the Senechal, Ouellette, & Rodney, 2006, for a review),
contribution of these factors. as well as comorbidity of language and reading dis-
To date, “surprisingly little” research has been ability (see Pennington & Bishop, 2009, for a
conducted with preschool-aged children, with most review), evidence as to whether the relation is
studies relying on very small clinical samples (Hor- potentially causal is unclear due to the currently
witz et al., 2003, p. 932). Hart and Risley’s (1995) limited and mixed evidence (NELP, 2008; Ouellette,
seminal study analyzed data from a longitudinal 2006; Schatschneider, Fletcher, Francis, Carlson, &
sample of 42 families, including only 6 families rep- Foorman, 2004). To what extent toddler- and pre-
resenting the lowest socioeconomic status (SES) school-aged children’s oral vocabularies predict
class. Pan, Rowe, Singer, and Snow (2005) charac- their later mathematics achievement or, separately,
terized data from these 6 families as constituting their behavioral functioning has yet to be compre-
“nearly the entirety of what we know” about hensively evaluated using population-based data.
vocabulary gaps by very young children from low- The extant studies almost entirely investigate
income families (p. 764). Fernald, Marchman, and single-domain pathways between oral vocabulary
Weisleder’s (2013) recent study investigating vocab- and (a) reading achievement, or (b) mathematics
ulary gaps at 18 and 24 months of age between achievement, or (c) behavioral functioning instead
children from high- and low-SES families was of estimating multiple domain pathways simulta-
based on a sample of 48 children. Use of small sam- neously, particularly as children make the major
ples limits generalizability to the larger, heteroge- transition to school (see Appendix S2 for further
neous U.S. population. This is a limitation of discussion of existing work’s limitations).
studies analyzing even larger convenience samples
(e.g., NICHD Early Child Care Research Network,
Potential Confounds of the Theorized Relation Between
2005: Storch & Whitehurst, 2002). Knowledge is
Oral Vocabulary and Academic and Behavioral
also limited about the age of onset and risk factors
Functioning
for vocabulary gaps for population subgroups that,
in addition to children from low-SES families (Fer- Rigorously evaluating the extent to which 24-
nald et al., 2013) and racial or ethnic minorities month-old children’s oral vocabularies uniquely
(Farkas & Beron, 2004), may also be at risk. Associ- predict their academic and behavioral functioning
ations with other modifiable factors (e.g., parenting, by kindergarten requires extensive statistical control
maternal mental health) have yet to be comprehen- for many potential confounds. Evidence of oral
sively examined. Early screening, monitoring, and vocabulary’s predictive relations following this con-
intervention efforts would be better targeted if trol would address identified limitations in the
guided by findings from large-scale, epidemiologi- field’s knowledge base (NELP, 2008), provide stron-
cal-type studies identifying the sociodemographic, ger support for each relation’s potential causality
gestational and birth, and family risk and resilience (Hart & Risley, 1995), and empirically evaluate the
factors most strongly associated with early and merits of calls for greater emphasis on oral vocabu-
meaningful differences in children’s oral vocabular- lary and other language-based competencies in
ies. Many of these factors are known to be associ- early intervention efforts (Dickinson et al., 2010;
ated with or predictive of children’s later cognitive, Hoff, 2013; Lesaux, 2012). To this end, we analyzed
academic, and behavioral functioning (Lynch, 2011). population-based data collected through a non-
Yet their specific associations with early vocabulary experimental panel design to evaluate evidence for
gaps are less clear. potential causal relations between 24-month-old
Small convenience samples also limit the field’s children’s oral vocabularies and their academic and
understanding of whether other factors explain the behavioral functioning at kindergarten entry.
1354 Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, Hammer, and Maczuga

We did so in two ways. First, we investigated dren, and provide more cognitively stimulating
whether 24-month-old children’s oral vocabularies environments often display greater academic and
predicted their academic and behavioral function- behavioral functioning, even after accounting for
ing at 60 months of age, establishing temporal SES and other sociodemographic characteristics
precedence. Second, we examined whether 24- (Iruka, LaForett, & Odom, 2012). Other potentially
month-old children’s oral vocabularies continued to important features of the home and family include
predict their academic and behavioral functioning whether a family member has a mental illness,
at 60 months of age following extensive statistical learning disability, or special need; whether the
control of many factors previously identified as mother has health problems, is depressed, or
potential confounds (e.g., general cognitive func- socially isolated; how much time the child spends
tioning, prior behavioral functioning), reducing the watching television; and whether or not the child
likelihood that any observed predictive relations attends day care. Parental mental and physical
between earlier oral vocabulary size and later aca- health problems are associated with cognitive and
demic and behavioral functioning were spurious. other delays in young children (Breaux, Harvey, &
Potential confounding factors of a relation Lugo-Candelas, 2013). Toddlers and preschool-aged
between 24-month-old children’s oral vocabularies children who frequently watch television are more
and their later academic and behavioral functioning likely to enter school with lower academic function-
may be grouped into several types of factors, each ing, particularly in reading (Pagani, Fitzpatrick, &
previously established as predictive of academic Barnett, 2013). This is possibly due to television
and/or behavioral functioning. The first group viewing displacing storybook reading (Koolstra &
includes sociodemographic characteristics of fami- Van der Voort, 1996) and limiting growth in chil-
lies including SES, race or ethnicity, maternal age, dren’s cognitive and attentional capacities (Christa-
and parental marital status. Low SES in particular kis, Zimmerman, DiGiuseppe, & McCarty, 2004).
may result in less cognitively stimulating and Conversely, educational or subtitled programs may
higher stress environments that constrain young instead help increase young children’s achievement
children’s academic and behavioral growth (Ennemoser & Schneider, 2007). Frequently attend-
(McLoyd, 1998). Low SES is strongly associated ing child care may increase children’s risk for
with non-White race or ethnicity, young maternal behavior problems, including during the transition
age, and being a single parent (DeNavas-Walt, to kindergarten (NICHD Early Child Care Research
Proctor, & Smith, 2013). Network, 2003).
The second group of confounds are gestational Young children’s own level of cognitive and
and birth characteristics, including low or very low behavioral functioning prior to or by kindergarten
birth weight, multiple gestation, and medical risks entry constitute additional potential confounds.
and complications during pregnancy and at deliv- Cognitive functioning strongly predicts children’s
ery. For instance, being born at low or very low later academic achievement and behavior (Duncan
birth weight (for which twins and higher order et al., 2007), and is likely related to children’s oral
multiples have heightened risk) may result in neu- vocabularies (e.g., Menting et al., 2010). Behavioral
rodevelopmental impairments in behavioral self- self-regulation (e.g., attentiveness, task persistence),
regulation (Klebanov, Brooks-Gunn, & McCormick, externalizing behavior problems (e.g., aggressive-
1994), general cognitive functioning (Hack, Klein, & ness), and internalizing behavior problems (e.g.,
Taylor, 1995), and academic achievement (Lynch, anxiety, withdrawal) are also associated with chil-
2011). Medical risks during pregnancy (e.g., mater- dren’s oral vocabularies (Menting et al., 2010) and
nal substance use), and complications of pregnancy should autoregressively predict later behavioral
(e.g., gestational diabetes) and delivery (e.g., pro- functioning (Morgan, Farkas, & Wu, 2009).
longed labor) are associated with later developmen-
tal delays (e.g., Anthopolos, Edwards, & Miranda,
Study’s Purpose
2013).
Parenting and the quality of the home environ- We sought to identify sociodemographic, gesta-
ment constitute a third group of potential con- tional and birth, cognitive and behavioral, and fam-
founds, with family stress and investment ily functioning factors associated with or predictive
potentially explaining the effects of SES on chil- of U.S. children’s oral vocabularies at 24 months of
dren’s development (Guo & Harris, 2000). For age. We also evaluated whether and to what extent
instance, young children whose parents are warm the children’s oral vocabularies uniquely predicted
and supportive, set consistent routines for their chil- their academic and behavioral functioning at
 24-Month-Old Children’s Oral Vocabulary Knowledge 1355

kindergarten entry. Our study investigated three matics achievement measures (N = 6,050). For the
specific research questions. First, which U.S. chil- 24- to 60-month analyses of behavioral functioning,
dren display larger or smaller oral vocabularies at we multiply imputed the predictor variables but
24 months of age? Second, does having a larger excluded cases with missing data on the behavioral
oral vocabulary at 24 months of age uniquely pre- measures (N = 4,350). (All reported sample sizes are
dict greater academic functioning at kindergarten rounded to the nearest 50 to comply with National
entry? Third, does having a larger oral vocabulary Center for Education Statistics [NCES], U.S. Depart-
at 24 months of age uniquely predict greater behav- ment of Education requirements for data reporting.)
ioral functioning at kindergarten entry? Table 1 displays weighted percentages or means or
standard deviations for the variables. The means of
the variables are quite similar across the three sam-
Method ples, suggesting that the samples are comparable
despite varying in size due to missing dependent
Design and Analytical Samples
variable data.
We analyzed data from the Early Childhood
Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort (ECLS–B), a popu-
lation-based, longitudinal cohort assessed from Measures, Criterion Variables
birth to kindergarten entry (http://nces.ed.gov/
Oral Vocabulary, 24 Months
ecls/birth.asp). This sample was selected from birth
certificate records and includes oversamples of par- Oral vocabulary size at 24 months was assessed
ticular population subgroups (e.g., Native Ameri- using a modified version of the MacArthur–
cans and Alaska Natives, children born with very Communicative Development Inventory (M–CDI;
low birth weight), with sample weights provided to Fenson, Dale, Reznick, Thal, & Bates, 1993) devel-
generate nationally representative estimates. ECLS– oped specifically for the ECLS–B by the CDI Advi-
B field staff individually administered measures of sory Board. This measure is a parent survey of
children’s cognitive and academic functioning and children’s expressive use of 50 words commonly
conducted interviews with family members, when known and spoken in the targeted age range. An
the children were 9, 24, 48, and 60 months of age. equivalent list of Spanish words was provided for
Kindergarten teachers rated the children’s behaviors Spanish-speaking parents; non-Spanish-speaking
at school entry. language minority parents were not included in the
We identified three analytical samples. For the 0- analyses. Internal consistency for the original M–
to 24-month analyses, children with missing data on CDI vocabulary scales is high (a = .96). The M–CDI
the study’s 24-month oral vocabulary measure were displays construct, concurrent, and predictive valid-
excluded, as were children with congenital anoma- ity (Fenson et al., 1994) and classifies children into
lies. We used multiple imputation (MI) procedures to language status groups with 97% accuracy (Skarakis-
account for missing data for predictor variables but Doyle, Campbell, & Dempsey, 2009). The number of
not for the oral vocabulary variable in the remaining words spoken by children as identified by parents
cases. Specifically, we used Imputation and Variance was summed to create the Total Word score at
Estimation Software or IVEware (http://www.isr.u- 24 months. The mean of this variable was about 29
mich.edu/src/smp/ive/) to repeatedly replace miss- words, with a standard deviation of about 12.
ing values with predictions based on random draws (Because this score was obtained using the shortened
from the posterior distributions of observed sample version of the M–CDI, it is not directly comparable
parameters, which results in multiple complete data to the 24-month mean number of words spoken
sets (Raghunathan, Solenberger, & Van Hoewyk, measured by the original M–CDI.)
2002). We averaged results obtained across five dif-
ferent imputation samples to account for random
Reading and Mathematics Achievement, 60 Months
variations in the data sets derived from MI (Raghu-
nathan et al., 2002). This resulted in an analytical The ECLS–B Reading Test consisted of 55 items
sample of 8,650 with data for analyses evaluating fac- designed to assess language development, emergent
tors predictive of 24-month-old children’s oral vocab- literacy, and basic reading. The Mathematics Test
ularies. For the 24- to 60-month analyses of reading included 42 items designed to assess number sense,
and mathematics achievement, we again multiply counting, operations, geometry, patterns, and
imputed the predictor variables but excluded cases measurement. Each measure consisted of a two-stage
with missing data on 60-month reading or mathe- routing procedure and item response theory (IRT)
1356 Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, Hammer, and Maczuga

Table 1 Table 1
Weighted Percentages or Means with Standard Deviations of the Continued
Study’s Three Analytical Samples
Variables Sample 1a Sample 2b Sample 3c
Variables Sample 1a Sample 2b Sample 3c
Risks
Total Word score Medical 18.1% 17.7% 17.9%
24 months 28.57 (11.83) 28.84 (11.79) 28.72 (12.00) Behavioral 11.1% 10.8% 10.7%
Reading Test score Parenting score
60 months 38.39 (14.83) 38.35 (14.75) 38.55 (14.86) 24 months 7.32 (1.15) 7.33 (1.14) 7.34 (1.14)
Mathematics Test score Family member status
60 months 40.17 (10.56) 40.24 (10.53) 40.49 (10.38) Mental illness 10.7% 11.1% 10.7%
Approaches to Learning Learning 15.3% 15.4% 15.7%
24 months 13.92 (3.56) 13.98 (3.53) 13.97 (3.59) disability
60 months 18.53 (2.49) 18.51 (2.50) 18.50 (2.50) Maternal status
Internalizing Problems Health problems 7.3% 7.2% 7.0%
24 months 4.41 (1.83) 4.35 (1.80) 4.40 (1.83) Household status
60 months 6.31 (2.19) 6.33 (2.20) 6.32 (2.20) Special need 7.4% 7.9% 7.8%
Externalizing Problems Mother 13.7% 13.9% 14.7%
24 months 4.87 (1.75) 4.84 (1.73) 4.86 (1.76) depressed
60 months 6.96 (3.07) 7.01 (3.10) 7.02 (3.12) Stayed in day care center
Race > 10 hr per week 14.0% 13.5% 13.8%
White 54.2% 53.9% 54.4% Child television usage
Black 13.6% 14.0% 13.0% Middle third 34.4% 33.9% 34.5%
Hispanic 24.8% 25.0% 25.5% Highest third 32.6% 33.0% 32.5%
Asian 2.7% 2.6% 2.6% Mother isolated 0.16 (0.44) 0.15 (0.44) 0.15 (0.45)
Native 0.5% 0.5% 0.5% Bayley Mental score
American 24 months 126.60 (10.49) 126.86 (10.33) 127.11 (10.67)
Other 4.2% 4.1% 4.0%
Age Note. Sample size rounded to nearest 50 per ECLS–B confidential-
24 months 24.16 (0.70) 24.15 (0.69) 24.15 (0.68) ity requirements. Sample 1: N = 8,650; Sample 2: N = 6,050;
Gender Sample 3: N = 4,350. ECLS–B = Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study-Birth Cohort; SES = socioeconomic status.
Male 51.1% 50.6% 51.5% a
Sample of ECLS–B children aged 0–24 months of age with com-
SES quintiles plete data on Total Word score measure at 24 months of age.
b
Lowest 19.3% 19.1% 18.4% Sample of ECLS–B children aged 24–60 months of age with com-
Second lowest 19.6% 20.0% 20.2% plete data on the reading and mathematics achievement measures
Middle 20.0% 20.6% 21.0% administered at 60 months of age. cSample of ECLS–B children
aged 24–60 months of age with complete data on the approaches
Second highest 20.7% 20.9% 20.8% to learning, externalizing problem behaviors, and internalizing
Highest 20.3% 19.4% 19.6% problem behaviors measures administered at 60 months of age.
Nonsingleton 3.3% 3.2% 3.3%
Mother’s age at child’s birth scaling. All children were initially given the same 24-
Equal to or 14.0% 13.7% 13.5% question test. Then, and depending on the number of
older than 35 correct responses on this test, they were adminis-
Younger or 6.9% 7.3% 7.4% tered one of three follow-up routing test forms on
equal to 18 the basis of scoring in the low, middle, or high range
Marital status
of the initial test. The Reading and the Mathematics
Not married 31.4% 31.2% 31.4%
Tests display IRT theta reliability coefficients of .92,
Primary language
Non-English 18.6% 18.0% 18.1%
indicating high reliability of the assessment scores
Birth weight (Najarian, Snow, Lennon, & Kinsey, 2010).
Very low 1.2% 1.2% 1.2%
Moderately 6.2% 6.2% 6.2%
Behavioral Self-Regulation, Externalizing Problem
low
Behaviors, and Internalizing Problem Behaviors,
Labor 35.5% 34.8% 35.0%
complications
60 Months
Obstetric 58.5% 57.5% 56.7% Teachers rated children’s behavioral functioning
procedures using items from the Preschool Learning and
Behavior Scales (2nd ed.), the Social Skills Rating
 24-Month-Old Children’s Oral Vocabulary Knowledge 1357

System, and the Early Childhood Longitudinal The first quintile represented the lowest SES. Chil-
Study, Kindergarten Class of 1998–1999. Teachers dren born individually were considered singletons;
rated the children’s frequency of behaviors using a all others were coded as nonsingletons. Dummy
scale ranging from 1 (never) to 5 (very often). We variables for whether the mother was equal to or
conducted an exploratory factor analysis, using a over 35 years of age or less than or equal to
promax rotation, of 22-rated behaviors, retaining a 18 years of age at the time of the child’s birth were
four-factor solution after examining several poten- also included. Being married was used as the refer-
tial factor solutions and considering a priori criteria. ence category for marital status. Children living in
Items with factor loadings lower than .60 were households where English was not the primary lan-
removed. We identified three of the four factors as guage spoken were identified using a dichotomous
relevant to this study: (a) approaches to learning, variable.
(b) internalizing problem behaviors, and (c) exter-
nalizing problem behaviors. The Approaches to
Characteristics From Birth Certificates
Learning scale (a = .91) contains five items measur-
ing behavioral self-regulation (e.g., “pays attention A count of medical conditions in pregnancy
well,” “keeps working until finished,” and [reverse included incompetent cervix, acute or chronic lung
scaled] “has difficulty concentrating”). The Internal- disease, chronic hypertension, pregnancy-induced
izing Problem Behaviors scale (a = .64) contains hypertension, eclampsia, diabetes, hemoglobinopa-
three items related to anxious or withdrawn behav- thy, cardiac disease, anemia, renal disease, genital
iors (i.e. “seems unhappy,” “worries about things,” herpes, oligohydramnios, uterine bleeding, Rh sen-
and “acts shy”). The Externalizing Problem Behav- sitization, previous birth weighing 4,000+ g, or pre-
ior scale (a = .87) contains four items related to act- vious preterm birth. Behavioral risk factors during
ing-out behaviors (e.g., “disrupts others,” “has pregnancy included any maternal use of alcohol
temper tantrums,” “is physically aggressive”). Items and/or tobacco during pregnancy (coded as 1 if
were summed to obtain scale scores. Higher present and summed to form a scale that ranged
Approaches to Learning scale scores indicated more from 0 to 2). Obstetrical procedures were measured
appropriate classroom-based behavioral self-regula- as a count of total procedures including induction
tion; higher Internalizing or Externalizing Problem of labor, stimulation of labor, tocolysis, amniocente-
Behaviors scale scores indicated more frequent sis, and Cesarean section. Labor complications were
problem behaviors. measured as a count of the following: placental
abruption anesthetic complications, dysfunctional
labor, breech/malpresentation, cephalopelvic dis-
Measures, Predictor Variables proportion, cord prolapse, fetal distress, excessive
bleeding, fever of > 100°F, moderate/heavy meco-
Sociodemographic Characteristics
nium, precipitous labor (< 3 hr), prolonged labor
Sociodemographic data were collected in parent (> 24 hr), placental previa or seizures during labor.
interviews at each assessment, as well as from birth Two indicator variables were used to quantify very
certificates. Race or ethnicity was defined as the low (<1,500 g) and moderately low (1,500–2,500 g)
race or ethnicity of the mother from birth certifi- birth weight. Normal (>2,500 g) birth weight was
cates. Non-Hispanic White was the reference group; the reference category.
other groups included non-Hispanic Black, His-
panic, Asian, Native American, and Other. Child
Parenting Quality, 24 Months
age in months was included to account for varia-
tions in actual age at the time of assessment. We averaged scores on two assessments con-
Female was the reference gender category. ECLS–B ducted at 24 months to create a composite parent-
staff calculated family SES using a composite of five ing score. The first assessment included items from
parent-reported indicators that included the father/ the Home Observation for Measurement of the
male guardian’s education and occupation, the Environment (HOME; Bradley & Caldwell, 1984), a
mother/female guardian’s education and occupa- widely used measure of the quality of the child’s
tion, and household income. NCES estimated miss- parenting and the home environment (e.g., NICHD
ing values, which averaged 2.5% across the five Early Childcare Research Network, 2005). NCES
SES indicators, using hot deck imputation. The SES retained a subset of the original measure’s 21 items
distribution was divided into quintiles and is repre- measuring (a) parental activities including reading
sented in regressions as a set of dummy variables. to the child, telling stories, singing, and taking the
1358 Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, Hammer, and Maczuga

child on errands or to public places; (b) having (poor) coded as 1. All other responses (e.g., “excel-
toys, records, books, and audiotapes available in lent”) were coded as 0.
the home; and (c) having a safe and supportive Special needs. Mothers responded during the 9-
home environment. Because the modified HOME month survey whether they or any other household
scale had relatively low internal consistency members had a special need, delay or disability.
(a = .46), the ECLS–B manual advises researchers to “Yes” responses were coded as 1; “no” responses
use alternatives other than scaling the items. We were coded as 0.
therefore used a count of 14 HOME scores items to Maternal depression. A modified version of the
indicate the extent to which these positive activities Center for Epidemiologic Studies–Depression (CES–
were reported or observed. D) scale (Radloff, 1977) was used as part of the 9-
The second parenting assessment consisted of month parent self-administered questionnaire. The
ratings of the quality of a parent’s interactive sup- modified CES–D scale includes 12 items including
port of their child, as coded from videotaped inter- having poor appetite, feeling lonely, and trouble
actions during the Two Bags Task, a simplified keeping focus. Scores were dichotomized so that a
version of the Three Bags Task used in the Early total score greater than 9 was coded as 1 for pres-
Head Start Research and Evaluation Project and ence of depressive symptoms, corresponding to the
the NICHD Study of Early Child Care (Nord, cutoff commonly used for the full CES–D of greater
Edwards, Andreassen, Green, & Wallner-Allen, than 15 (Nord et al., 2006).
2006). Interviewers read a script to the children’s Maternal social isolation. Five variables were used
parents, after which, over the next 10 min, parents to construct a scale of maternal social isolation.
were asked to play with their children using a Four of these variables asked the mother if she had
wordless picture book (i.e., Goodnight Gorilla) and people available to ask for help for various needs
a set of toy dishes. A composite variable measur- (1 = “no one” for each variable). The other variable
ing parental support was created for the ECLS–B asked about being close to her own mother
representing the mean of three characteristics of (1 = “not close”). The sum of these five variables
parental interactions with their children: (a) sensi- was calculated and used as a measure of social iso-
tivity, (b) stimulation of cognitive development, lation.
and (c) positive regard. Each item was scored on a
7-point scale, ranging from 1 = very low to 7 = very
Hours per Week in Child-Care Center, 24 Months
high. Mean interrater reliability for the parent rat-
ing scales was 97%, with mean reliabilities of 97%, During the 24-month survey, parents were asked
93%, and 94% for sensitivity, cognitive stimulation, how many hours a week their child spends in a
and positive regard, respectively (see Andreassen, child-care center. Responses to this question were
Fletcher, & Park, 2007, for additional measurement coded dichotomously so that a response of 11 hr or
detail). more was coded as 1.

History of Mental or Physical Illness or Disabling Television Usage, 24 Months

Conditions, 9 Months
Average weekly television usage was calculated
Family member with mental illness. Mothers were based on a parent’s response at 24 months about
asked at the 9-month survey whether they or a the child’s average number of hours spent watching
family member had “a serious mental illness, such television or videos in the household during week-
as schizophrenia, a paranoid disorder, a bipolar dis- days and nends. Less than 9 hr was considered low
order, or manic episodes?” “Yes” answers were television usage, between 9 and 17 hr was consid-
coded as 1; “no” answers were coded as 0. ered medium television usage, and more than 17 hr
Family member with learning disability. Mothers was considered high television usage.
were also asked at 9 months, “Have you or any of
your blood relatives ever had a learning disability?”
Cognitive Functioning, 24 Months
“Yes” answers were coded as 1; “no” answers were
coded as 0. A standardized assessment was administered at
Maternal health problems. During the 9-month the 24-month survey wave to measure children’s
wave, mothers rated their overall health on a scale general cognitive functioning. Field staff individu-
of 1–5. The responses were transformed into a ally administered the Bayley Short Form–Research
dichotomous variable, with responses of 4 (fair) or 5 Edition (BSF–R), a modified version of the Bayley
 24-Month-Old Children’s Oral Vocabulary Knowledge 1359

Scales of Infant Development, 2nd ed. (BSID–II; .72 for the 24-month behavioral self-regulation,
Bayley, 1993), which is designed for use with chil- externalizing problem behaviors, and internalizing
dren from birth to 36 months of age. In both the problem behaviors measures, respectively.
BSID–II and the BSF–R, the mental score is based
on the trained interviewer’s assessment of a child’s
Analytical Methods
ability to perform tasks related to memory, habitua-
tion, preverbal communication, problem solving, The score distribution of the measure of 24-
and concept attainment. The IRT reliability coeffi- month-old children’s parent-reported oral vocabu-
cient of the BSF–R mental scale at 24 months was lary generally resembled a normal curve, with a
.88 (Andreassen et al., 2007). The reported R2 truncation point at 50 words (i.e., the maximum pos-
between BSF–R and BSID–II scores was .99, indicat- sible score). There are 280 cases of about 9,500 (i.e.,
ing that the BSF–R maintains the psychometric 2.9%) at this truncation point. To avoid bias due to
properties of the BSID–II and accurately measures truncation at the upper limit of the variable (ceiling
children’s performance across the ability distribu- effect), we used Tobit regression analysis when pre-
tion (Andreassen et al., 2007). dicting children’s scores on the oral vocabulary mea-
sure. Our first set of analyses estimated six Tobit
regression models predicting 24-month-old chil-
Behavioral Self-Regulation, Externalizing Problem
dren’s oral vocabularies. We entered these sets of
Behaviors, and Internalizing Problem Behaviors,
predictors sequentially. As shown in Table 2, Model
24 Months
1 estimated to what extent children’s or families’
Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Birth sociodemographic characteristics functioned as pre-
Cohort trained examiners used the Behavior Rating dictors. The sociodemographic variables included
Scale–Research Edition (BRS–R) to rate children’s children’s race or ethnicity, age, gender, and SES.
behaviors as they completed BSF–R tasks during Model 2 added additional sociodemographic vari-
the 24-month survey wave. The BRS–R was ables to the regression equation. Model 3 added the
adapted from the Behavior Rating Scale (BRS; Bay- children’s gestational and birth characteristics.
ley, 1993). Scores on the BRS correlate moderately Model 4 entered predictors related to family risk
to highly with scores on other measures of young and resilience. Model 5 added children’s behavioral
children’s socioemotional adjustment (Buck, 1997). functioning; Model 6 added their cognitive function-
The BRS–R included 11 interviewer-rated items ing. Estimating these models sequentially allowed
from the full BRS measuring developmentally us to investigate whether there were significant
appropriate behaviors for 24-month-old children direct effects of these groupings of variables on 24-
including their attention to task, persistence, coop- month-old children’s oral vocabularies, as well as
eration with an examiner, interest in the testing whether these groupings of variables explained the
materials, and frustration with testing tasks (Nord direct effects of the previously entered variables.
et al., 2006). A 5-point scale was used to rate the Our second and third sets of analyses investi-
frequency of the observed behavior. A higher score gated whether and to what extent, and before and
indicated that the problem behavior occurred infre- after extensive statistical control, having a larger
quently. The self-regulatory items on the BRS (e.g., oral vocabulary at 24 months of age predicted chil-
attention to task, persistence) had an internal dren’s academic and behavioral functioning at
consistency of .92. 60 months of age. We conducted separate ordinary
We used eight items from the BRS–R to control least squares regression analyses predicting each of
for prior behavioral functioning. Four items mea- the five criterion variables. Predictor variables in
sured children’s prior behavioral self-regulation these regression analyses included oral vocabulary,
(e.g., “pays attention to tasks,” “is persistent in sociodemographic and birth characteristics, family
tasks”). Two items measured prior externalizing risk and resilience characteristics, and children’s
behaviors (i.e., “frustration in tasks,” “coopera- cognitive and behavioral functioning at 24 months
tion”). Two items measured prior internalizing of age. We used SAS 9.3 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary,
problem behaviors (i.e., “fearlessness,” “social NC) to perform the analyses. We incorporated sam-
engagement”). Specific items were reverse coded as pling weights and design effects to account for
appropriate to be consistent with either appropriate oversampling of some population subgroups and
(i.e., for behavioral self-regulation) or problematic for the stratified cluster design of the ECLS–B. We
(i.e., for externalizing or internalizing) behavioral used an alpha of p < .05 in establishing statistical
functioning. Cronbach’s alphas were .90, .64, and significance including for our primary analyses
1360 Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, Hammer, and Maczuga

Table 2
Parameter Estimates (Standardized) of Tobit Regression Equations Predicting Children’s Oral Vocabularies at 24 Months, ECLS–B Data

Variables Model 1a Model 2b Model 3c Model 4d Model 5e Model 6f

Intercept 0.92*** 0.98*** 0.96*** 0.75*** 0.69*** 0.26***

Race
Black 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.17*** 0.16*** 0.25***
Hispanic 0.17*** 0.12** 0.12** 0.06 0.06 0.05
Asian 0.13 0.05 0.05 0.12 0.13 0.11
Native American 0.15 0.16 0.16 0.07 0.04 0.16
Other 0.06 0.08 0.06 0.0001 0.02 0.08
Age
24 months 0.19*** 0.18*** 0.18*** 0.18*** 0.17*** 0.08***
Gender
Male 0.52*** 0.51*** 0.52*** 0.49*** 0.44*** 0.26***
SES quintile
Lowest 0.55*** 0.57*** 0.54*** 0.22*** 0.21*** 0.08*
Second lowest 0.44*** 0.47*** 0.45*** 0.20*** 0.22*** 0.06
Middle 0.32*** 0.34*** 0.33*** 0.17*** 0.18*** 0.04
Second highest 0.21*** 0.22*** 0.22*** 0.13** 0.12** 0.02
Nonsingleton 0.47*** 0.30*** 0.28*** 0.24*** 0.13*
Mother’s age at child’s birth
Equal to or older than 35 0.13*** 0.13** 0.14*** 0.14*** 0.11***
Younger or equal to 18 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.05
Marital status
Not married 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.08* 0.08**
Primary language
Non-English 0.12* 0.12** 0.05 0.05 0.10*
Birth weight
Very low 0.88*** 0.87*** 0.83*** 0.39***
Moderately low 0.24*** 0.23*** 0.21*** 0.05
Labor complications 0.01 0.002 0.01 0.001
Obstetric procedures 0.05** 0.05* 0.05* 0.04**
Risks
Medical 0.04 0.03 0.01 0.03
Behavioral 0.06 0.04 0.01 0.01
Parenting score at 24 months 0.28*** 0.24*** 0.10***
Family member status
Mental illness 0.12** 0.12** 0.09
Learning disability 0.03 0.02 0.03
Maternal status
Health problems 0.27*** 0.24*** 0.15***
Household status
Special need 0.16*** 0.14** 0.05
Mother depressed 0.02 0.03 0.02
Stayed in day-care center
> 10 hr per week 0.12** 0.12** 0.03
Child television usage
Middle third 0.01 0.10 0.01
Highest third 0.11*** 0.09** 0.04
Mother isolated 0.03* 0.03* 0.02
Approaches to learning
24 months 0.62*** 0.20***
Internalizing problems
24 months 0.27*** 0.08**
 24-Month-Old Children’s Oral Vocabulary Knowledge 1361

Table 2
Continued

Variables Model 1a Model 2b Model 3c Model 4d Model 5e Model 6f

Externalizing problems
24 months 0.30*** 0.07
General cognitive functioning
24 months 0.61***

Note. N = 8,650. Sample size rounded to nearest 50 per ECLS–B confidentiality requirements. ECLS–B = Early Childhood Longitudinal
Study–Birth Cohort; SES = socioeconomic status.
a
Model 1 = Intercept, race, age, gender, and SES. bModel 2 = Adds maternal age, marital status, and primary language spoken in the
home as additional predictors. cModel 3 = Adds birth weight, labor complications, obstetric procedures, medical and behavioral risks
as predictors. dAdds parenting, family and maternal and household status, maternal depression, child care, television usage, and mater-
nal isolation as predictors. eAdds behavioral self-regulation and problem behaviors as predictors. fAdds general cognitive functioning
as a predictor.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

(Moye, 2008; see Appendix S3 for multiplicity check homes where English was not the primary spoken
information). language. Controlling for this language variable
also partially explained the negative relation
between children’s Hispanic status and their oral
Results vocabulary size.
The third column adds gestational and birth
Which U.S. Children Display Larger or Smaller Oral
characteristics as predictors. There was a very
Vocabularies at 24 Months of Age?
strong negative predictive relation ( .88 SD)
Table 2 displays results from Tobit regressions between very low birth weight and 24-month-old
predicting children’s oral vocabularies at 24 months children’s oral vocabularies. The relation with mod-
of age. All continuous variables (including the erately low birth weight was smaller ( .24 SD) but
dependent variable) were standardized. Thus, all also statistically significant. The effects of labor
coefficients represent directly comparable standard- complications, obstetric procedures, and the
ized coefficients (i.e., effect sizes). mother’s medical and behavioral risks during preg-
The first column (Model 1) shows the very nancy were small. Including these covariates in the
strong and significant effects of gender and SES. regression equation reduced the predicted effect of
Boys averaged .52 SD fewer words spoken than being a nonsingleton by about one third. Thus, a
girls. This gap is similar in magnitude to the vocab- portion of this relation appeared to be due to the
ulary gap by U.S. children in the lowest and high- relatively lower birth weights of nonsingletons. The
est SES quintiles. (Thus, a boy toddler from the fourth column displays the results of adding family
lowest SES quintile, on average, experienced a dou- risk and resilience factors to the regression equa-
ble decrement summing to somewhat more than tion. Two resilience factors—parenting quality and
1 SD.) The association between SES quintiles and day-care attendance—were both significantly associ-
words spoken was approximately linear, with a dif- ated with 24-month-old children having larger oral
ference of about .10 SD for each successive quintile. vocabularies, with predicted effect sizes of .28 and
In contrast, there was only an inconsistent associa- .12 SD, respectively. Among the risk factors, several
tion between children’s race or ethnicity and oral were also significantly and negatively associated
vocabularies. with oral vocabulary. These included a family
The second column shows that, among addi- member with a mental illness ( .12 SD), maternal
tional sociodemographics, the largest association health problems ( .27 SD), a household member
with 24-month-old children’s oral vocabularies with special needs ( .16 SD), and the child being
involved the .47 SD decrement experienced by non- in the highest third of television usage ( .11 SD).
singletons. Although this association was reduced These factors helped explain the predicted effect of
in size in subsequent models, it remained signifi- SES. Following their statistical control, the associa-
cant. A modest (.13 SD) but significant decrement tion between each SES quintile and children’s oral
was observed for the children of older mothers. A vocabularies decreased by about 50% but remained
decrement of .12 was observed for children from significant.
1362 Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, Hammer, and Maczuga

The fifth and sixth columns of Table 2 show the highly conservative test of the hypothesized rela-
results of adding the 24-month behavioral and gen- tion. Oral vocabulary size initially predicted 24-
eral cognitive functioning measures into the regres- month-old children’s reading and mathematics
sion equation. The three behavioral measures were achievement at kindergarten entry. These predicted
associated in expected directions with oral vocabu- effect sizes were .22 and .27 SD, respectively.
lary, so that 24-month-old children who displayed Model 2 shows that despite statistical control for a
more attentive, task persistent, and other types of wide range of covariates, having a larger oral vocabu-
learning-related behaviors also displayed larger oral lary at 24 months of age remained positively and sig-
vocabularies (.62 SD), while those children with nificantly predictive of greater academic functioning
stronger internalizing or externalizing problem at kindergarten entry. Model 3’s results indicate that
behaviors displayed smaller oral vocabularies ( .27 even after controlling for 24-month-old children’s
and .30 SD, respectively). general cognitive functioning, having a larger oral
Because the measures of general cognitive func- vocabulary positively and significantly predicted
tioning and oral vocabulary were both language their later reading and mathematics achievement. The
dependent, we expected to find a strong association adjusted effect sizes were .07 and .10 SD for reading
between the two variables. As shown in Model 6, and mathematics achievement, respectively.
the relation was indeed very strong and significant Table 3 identifies additional factors consistently
(.61 SD). However, even with these behavioral and predictive of greater academic functioning. These
general cognitive functioning controls added to the included being White or Asian, being from a high-
regression equation, most of the associations SES family, being born as a singleton, watching
remained statistically significant despite decreasing television more frequently, and displaying higher
in magnitude. The exception was family SES, sug- levels of general cognitive functioning. However,
gesting that the relation between SES and 24- 24-month-old children’s oral vocabularies remained
month-old children’s oral vocabularies was partially uniquely predictive of their academic functioning at
accounted for by other risk factors. These included kindergarten entry despite the large number of con-
being a raised by a single mother, being born with trols. We also investigated (results not shown) the
low birth weight, experiencing less warm or cogni- possibility that SES moderated the predicted effect
tively stimulating parenting, being raised in a of oral vocabulary on academic functioning (as well
household with a socially isolated mother or one as behavioral functioning). We did so by adding
who has health problems, and, mostly strongly, by interaction terms between the four SES dummy
children’s own level of general cognitive and variables and oral vocabulary to the regression
behavioral functioning. However, being in the low- equations. These interaction terms were not statisti-
est SES quintile remained significantly negatively cally significant.
related to children’s oral vocabulary size despite
extensive statistical control. Oral vocabulary at
Does Having a Larger Oral Vocabulary at 24 Months of
24 months functioned somewhat independently of
Age Uniquely Predict Greater Behavioral Functioning at
general cognitive functioning, which is a conclusion
Kindergarten Entry?
that is also supported by results in the study’s sec-
ond set of analyses. Table 4 displays regressions predicting teacher
ratings of kindergarten children’s behavioral self-
regulation, as well as their internalizing and exter-
Does Having a Larger Oral Vocabulary at 24 Months of
nalizing problem behaviors. Having a larger oral
Age Uniquely Predict Greater Academic Functioning at
vocabulary significantly predicted all three indica-
Kindergarten Entry?
tors of behavioral functioning in Model 1. Specifi-
Table 3 displays the results of using 24-month- cally, 24-month-old children with larger oral
old children’s oral vocabulary, as well as the full vocabularies displayed greater behavioral self-regu-
set of additional risk and resilience factors just pre- lation (.22 SD) and fewer internalizing and external-
sented, to predict their academic functioning at kin- izing problem behaviors at kindergarten entry
dergarten entry. The first model of Table 3 displays ( .11 and .14 SD, respectively). Adding Model 2
the unadjusted estimate between oral vocabulary and 3’s controls to the regression equation reduced
and reading or mathematics achievement. Then the oral vocabulary’s predictive relations with the three
second model adds control variables to the regres- indicators of children’s behavioral functioning but
sion equation. The third column adds general cog- the relations remained statistically significant. Hav-
nitive functioning as a control, allowing for a ing a larger oral vocabulary predicted greater
 24-Month-Old Children’s Oral Vocabulary Knowledge 1363

Table 3
Parameter Estimates (Standardized) of OLS Regressions Predicting Children’s Academic Achievement at 60 Months, ECLS–B Data

Reading achievement Mathematics achievement

Variables Model 1a Model 2b Model 3c Model 1a Model 2b Model 3c

Intercept 0.07** 0.37*** 0.33*** 0.05* 0.38*** 0.31***

Oral vocabulary
24 months 0.22*** 0.12*** 0.07*** 0.27*** 0.17*** 0.10***
Race
Black 0.02 0.003 0.20*** 0.17**
Hispanic 0.04 0.02 0.14* 0.11
Asian 0.46*** 0.47*** 0.30*** 0.31***
Native American 0.19* 0.15 0.36*** 0.30**
Other 0.08 0.06 0.14 0.12
Child age
24 months 0.14*** 0.13*** 0.12*** 0.11***
Gender
Male 0.10** 0.08* 0.01 0.03
SES quintile
Lowest 0.78*** 0.76*** 0.77*** 0.75***
Second lowest 0.59*** 0.57*** 0.59*** 0.57***
Middle 0.39*** 0.37*** 0.40*** 0.38***
Second highest 0.24*** 0.23*** 0.23*** 0.22***
Nonsingleton 0.08* 0.08* 0.10* 0.09*
Mother’s age at child’s birth
Equal to or older than 35 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.02
Younger or equal to 18 0.10 0.11 0.11* 0.12*
Marital status
Not married 0.07 0.07 0.04 0.04
Primary language
Non-English 0.03 0.004 0.002 0.03
Birth weight
Very low 0.10* 0.05 0.28*** 0.21***
Moderately low 0.03 0.01 0.07 0.04
Labor complications 0.06 0.06 0.003 0.003
Obstetric procedures 0.02 0.02 0.01 0.02
Risks
Medical 0.07* 0.07* 0.004 0.01
Behavioral 0.06 0.05 0.06 0.04
Parenting score
24 months 0.03 0.02 0.05* 0.02
Family member status
Mental illness 0.04 0.05 0.01 0.01
Learning disability 0.07 0.07 0.10* 0.09*
Maternal status
Health problems 0.03 0.02 0.08 0.07
Household status
Special need 0.02 0.02 0.02 0.01
Mother depressed 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05
Stayed in day-care center
> 10 hr per week 0.04 0.03 0.05 0.04
Child television usage
Middle third 0.10* 0.09* 0.11** 0.10**
Highest third 0.10* 0.11** 0.11** 0.12**
Mother isolated 0.02 0.02 0.05*** 0.05**
Approaches to learning
24 months 0.18** 0.12* 0.14** 0.06
1364 Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, Hammer, and Maczuga

Table 3
Continued

Reading achievement Mathematics achievement

Variables Model 1a Model 2b Model 3c Model 1a Model 2b Model 3c

Internalizing problems
24 months 0.04 0.07 0.02 0.05
Externalizing problems
24 months 0.05 0.02 0.06 0.02
General cognitive functioning
24 months 0.12*** 0.16***

Note. N = 6,050. Sample size rounded to nearest 50 per ECLS–B confidentiality requirements. OLS = ordinary least squares; ECLS–
B = Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort; SES = socioeconomic status.
a
Intercept and oral vocabulary as predictors. bAdds race, age, gender, SES, nonsingleton, maternal age, language spoken in the home,
birth weight, labor complications, obstetric procedures, medical and behavioral risks, parenting, family and maternal and household
status, maternal depression, child care, television usage, maternal isolation, behavioral self-regulation and problem behaviors as predic-
tors. cAdds general cognitive functioning as a predictor.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

behavioral self-regulation (.10 SD), as well as fewer of entering kindergarten with lower academic and
internalizing ( .09 SD) and externalizing problem behavioral functioning. Consistent with previously
behaviors ( .06 SD) even following statistical con- theorized mechanisms, oral vocabulary has both a
trol for autoregressive behavioral functioning. Other general and unique relation with children’s devel-
less consistent predictors of children’s behavioral opment. The relation is evident across multiple
functioning included being a boy, being raised by a indicators of both academic and behavioral func-
single mother, and frequently attending child care. tioning during early childhood. Twenty-four-month
children’s oral vocabularies remain predictive of
their academic and behavioral functioning at kin-
dergarten entry despite extensive statistical control
Discussion
for many factors previously identified as potential
Our analyses of a population-based data set identify confounds.
which groups of 24-month-old children in the Uni-
ted States are at risk of having smaller oral vocabu-
Limitations
laries. Our results are consistent with prior research
indicating that children being raised in low-SES This study has at least five limitations. First, our
families are likely to have smaller oral vocabularies measure of children’s oral vocabulary size is brief
(e.g., Fernald et al., 2013; Hart & Risley, 1995). This and relies on parental recall. We also used chil-
specific relation is partially explained by a more dren’s scores on this measure to predict their per-
general set of sociodemographic, gestational and formance on independently administered measures
birth, family risk and resilience, and individual of academic and behavioral functioning 3 years
characteristics, particularly children’s own levels of later. The resulting measurement error, as well as
cognitive functioning. Other studies report that fam- multiyear time interval, should bias our estimates
ily stress and investment characteristics mediate the downward, possibly making them overly conserva-
relation between lower SES and academic achieve- tive. This type of limitation extends to the measure
ment, but the extent to which this occurs for oral of general cognitive functioning. Because the gen-
vocabulary has been unclear (Farkas & Beron, 2004), eral cognitive functioning measure was also admin-
in part due to a range of measures, sampling, and istered orally and at times required verbal
analytical methods being used when examining SES responses, this confound should be highly corre-
(Hoff, Laursen, & Bridges, 2012). Our results indi- lated with 24-month-old children’s oral vocabular-
cate that family stress and investment characteristics ies. Consequently, use of a brief survey of parental
partially explain the relation between family SES report of 50 words spoken by their 24-month-old
and children’s oral vocabulary size. children, as well as statistical control for correlated
The results further indicate that 24-month-old verbal intelligence, may have resulted in very con-
children with smaller oral vocabularies are at risk servative estimates of oral vocabulary’s “true” rela-
 24-Month-Old Children’s Oral Vocabulary Knowledge 1365

Table 4
Parameter Estimates (Standardized) of OLS Regressions Predicting Children’s Behavioral Functioning at 60 months, ECLS–B Data

Approaches to learning Internalizing problems Externalizing problems

Variables Model 1a Model 2b Model 3c Model 1a Model 2b Model 3c Model 1a Model 2b Model 3c

Intercept 0.02 0.34*** 0.30*** 0.03 0.17* 0.15 0.03 0.42*** 0.40***
Oral vocabulary
24 months 0.22*** 0.15*** 0.10*** 0.11*** 0.10*** 0.09** 0.14*** 0.07*** 0.06*
Race
Black 0.05 0.08 0.15* 0.16* 0.04 0.03
Hispanic 0.04 0.06 0.04 0.05 0.13* 0.14*
Asian 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.02 0.16* 0.16*
Native American 0.02 0.03 0.06 0.04 0.32 0.31
Other race 0.002 0.02 0.03 0.03 0.03 0.03
Child age
24 month 0.03 0.03 0.05* 0.06* 0.003 0.01
Gender
Male 0.22*** 0.21*** 0.02 0.02 0.42*** 0.42***
SES quintile
Lowest 0.16 0.15 0.19* 0.19* 0.11 0.11
Second lowest 0.20* 0.18* 0.22** 0.22** 0.14 0.14
Middle 0.12* 0.11 0.26*** 0.25*** 0.06 0.05
Second highest 0.05 0.04 0.10 0.10 0.04 0.03
Nonsingleton 0.05 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.05 0.05
Mother’s age at child’s birth
Equal to or older than 35 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.001
Younger than or equal to 18 0.08 0.09 0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04
Marital status
Not married 0.21** 0.21** 0.05 0.05 0.23*** 0.23**
Primary language
Non-English 0.02 0.04 0.14 0.15 0.11 0.12
Birth weight
Very low 0.24*** 0.19** 0.01 0.03 0.06 0.07
Moderately low 0.06 0.04 0.001 0.005 0.03 0.04
Labor complications 0.01 0.01 0.11** 0.11** 0.02 0.02
Obstetric procedures 0.04 0.04 0.001 0.0001 0.02 0.02
Risks
Medical 0.08 0.08 0.03 0.03 0.13* 0.12*
Behavioral 0.13 0.12 0.06 0.07 0.18 0.17
Parenting score
24 months 0.08** 0.06* 0.01 0.005 0.04 0.03
Family member status
Mental illness 0.15 0.14 0.04 0.04 0.13 0.13
Learning 0.02 0.01 0.11 0.11 0.11 0.11
disability
Maternal health problems 0.13 0.13 0.22* 0.22* 0.03 0.03
Household status
Special need 0.06 0.05 0.02 0.02 0.06 0.06
Mother depressed 0.11 0.11 0.02 0.02 0.15* 0.15*
Stayed in day-care center
> 10 hr per week 0.14* 0.15* 0.06 0.06 0.30*** 0.31***
Child television usage
Middle third 0.10* 0.10* 0.03 0.03 0.004 0.003
Highest third 0.09 0.10* 0.10 0.11 0.05 0.05
Mother isolated 0.04* 0.04* 0.01 0.01 0.04 0.04
Approaches to learning
24 months 0.12* 0.06
1366 Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, Hammer, and Maczuga

Table 4
Continued

Approaches to learning Internalizing problems Externalizing problems

Variables Model 1a Model 2b Model 3c Model 1a Model 2b Model 3c Model 1a Model 2b Model 3c

Internalizing problems
24 months 0.15* 0.14
Externalizing problems
24 months 0.27** 0.25**
General cognitive functioning
24 months 0.11** 0.03 0.04

Note. N = 4,350. Sample size rounded to nearest 50 per ECLS–B confidentiality requirements. OLS = ordinary least squares; ECLS–
B = Early Childhood Longitudinal Study–Birth Cohort; SES = socioeconomic status.
a
Intercept and oral vocabulary as predictors. bAdds race, age, gender, SES, nonsingleton, maternal age, language spoken in the home,
birth weight, labor complications, obstetric procedures, medical and behavioral risks, parenting, family and maternal and household
status, maternal depression, child care, television usage, maternal isolation, behavioral self-regulation and problem behaviors as predic-
tors. cAdds general cognitive functioning as a predictor.
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

tion with later academic and behavioral function- elementary school. This is because the ECLS–B’s
ing. Second, and again due to the ECLS–B’s design data collection ended at kindergarten entry. Fifth,
and measurement limitations, we were unable to the ECLS–B’s data collection did not allow us to
directly contrast oral vocabulary’s predictive utility report on the quality and quantity of children’s
against a variety of other early language or numer- overall language exposure in the home. Language
acy competencies (e.g., phonological awareness, input in the home may also explain the relation
number sense, working memory) that may also be between family SES and children’s oral vocabulary
predictive of later academic and behavioral func- (Fernald et al., 2013; Hart & Risley, 1995).
tioning (e.g., Fitzpatrick & Pagani, 2012). However,
many of these competencies should be correlated
Study’s Contributions and Implications
with other controls included in our study (e.g., SES,
prior behavioral and general cognitive functioning). Oral vocabulary is theorized to contribute to
Third, a measure of expressive but not receptive many indicators of children’s academic and behav-
vocabulary was available in the ECLS–B’s 24-month ioral functioning, including reading and mathemat-
survey wave. Therefore, we were unable to directly ics achievement, behavioral self-regulation, and
contrast the relative contribution of expressive ver- frequency of externalizing and internalizing problem
sus receptive vocabulary knowledge to children’s behaviors (e.g., LeFevre et al., 2010; Perfetti & Staf-
academic or behavioral functioning at school entry. ura, 2014; Qi & Kaiser, 2004). Meaningful differences
However, strong positive correlations have been in children’s oral vocabularies have been reported to
found between receptive and expressive vocabulary occur by 24 months of age (e.g., Fernald et al.,
(e.g., r = .66; Sideridis & Simos, 2010), and Tomblin 2013). These differences have been hypothesized to
and Zhang’s (2006) large-scale investigation of strongly contribute to later achievement gaps (Hart
young children’s language abilities yielded no evi- & Risley, 1995; Hoff, 2013). Yet methodological and
dence for a receptive–expressive vocabulary dissoci- substantive limitations in existing work have been
ation. Measuring children’s ability to speak words identified (NELP, 2008), and oral vocabulary has
should also better index the relative size of their sometimes been reported to fail to uniquely predict
vocabularies than measuring their ability to com- children’s achievement (Schatschneider et al., 2004).
prehend spoken words (Senechal et al., 2006). The result is substantial ambiguity as to oral vocab-
Fourth, although other studies indicate that aca- ulary’s theoretical and practical importance as a con-
demic and behavioral functioning by school entry tributor to children’s academic and behavioral
contribute to long-term educational and societal functioning, and whether early interventions—as is
opportunities (e.g., Chetty et al., 2011), we were increasingly suggested (e.g., Dickinson et al., 2010;
unable to directly evaluate whether oral vocabulary Lesaux, 2012)—should emphasize preventing or re-
continued to contribute to children’s academic and mediating early vocabulary gaps to accelerate at-risk
behavioral functioning as they progressed through children’s developmental trajectories.
 24-Month-Old Children’s Oral Vocabulary Knowledge 1367

Our study therefore has several theoretical and increasing the children’s educational and societal
practical implications. We identify by the 24-month opportunities as they age (e.g., Hoff, 2013; Lesaux,
time period a wide range of sociodemographic, ges- 2012). However, and across the study’s five indica-
tational and birth, family risk and resilience, and tors of academic and behavioral functioning, other
child-level factors associated with larger or smaller factors were also predictive. Consistent with this
oral vocabularies that themselves may be included other work, these other factors included SES, low
in early screening, monitoring, and intervention birth weight, watching television frequently, fre-
efforts. Consistent with prior research (e.g., Fernald quently being in child care (NICHD Early Child
et al., 2013; Hart & Risley, 1995), we initially found Care Research Network, 2003), and children’s own
that family SES initially has a strong, consistent prior level of general cognitive functioning. Our
association with 24-month-old children’s oral study’s results extend prior work by suggesting
vocabularies. However, and which has been not that attending child care may also positively
previously reported, we subsequently found that impact children’s oral vocabularies. Our findings
this association is partially explained by children’s are consistent with prior work suggesting that par-
own level of behavioral and general cognitive func- ents who are stressed, overburdened, less engaged,
tioning in addition to other factors. Low SES in par- and experiencing less social support may less fre-
ticular is increasingly recognized as being quently talk, read, or otherwise interact with their
associated with fewer oral vocabulary-building children (e.g., Paulson, Keefe, & Leiferman, 2009),
opportunities (Mani, Mullainathan, Shafir, & Zhao, resulting in these children having smaller oral
2013) and child-directed speech (Weisleder & Fer- vocabularies.
nald, 2013). Our study’s findings of low SES’s Prior empirical studies have largely been limited
continuing negative relation with oral vocabulary, to investigations of single developmental pathways
as well as the uniquely positive relation observed between vocabulary and (a) reading achievement,
for parenting behaviors that are cognitively stimu- (b) mathematics achievement, or (c) behavioral func-
lating, child centered, and positive, are consistent tioning. Our study extends the field’s knowledge
with these theoretical accounts and suggest that base by rigorously establishing that oral vocabulary
interventions may need to be specifically targeted uniquely predicts multiple developmental pathways
to 24-month-old children being raised in disadvan- simultaneously and that this is evident as children
taged home environments (Hart & Risley, 1995; are making the major transition to formal schooling.
Rowe, 2008). Our findings are also consistent with That oral vocabulary displays both temporal prece-
other research indicating that being born with very dence and continued predictive utility despite exten-
low birth weight (Stolt, Haataja, Lapinleimu, & Le- sive covariate adjustment across such a diverse
htonen, 2008) and being raised in a household with number of indicators of children’s development
a mentally ill family member (Zajicek-Farber, 2010) functions as a type of internal replication, providing
may contribute to delays in oral vocabulary acquisi- empirical support to oral vocabulary’s theorized
tion. The negative association with being a nonsin- importance as a first-order factor that may contrib-
gleton is consistent with other work (Hillemeier, ute to their early life-course trajectories. Our study
Farkas, Morgan, Martin, & Maczuga, 2009) and also provides additional empirical support for
may result from parents speaking fewer words to claims that preventing or reducing later academic
each child when they are raising two or more chil- achievement gaps and their sequela may necessitate
dren of the same age. Our findings indicate that the special emphasis on increasing at-risk children’s oral
negative association with mental illness may not be vocabularies. Such efforts may need to occur before
unique to maternal depression, which itself is children are 24 months old. This is because oral
explained by children’s own lower behavioral and vocabulary gaps are evident even by this very early
general cognitive functioning, but may instead be time period, and in turn consistently predict chil-
related to a more general set of health and well- dren’s academic and behavioral functioning as they
being indicators including a family member having begin kindergarten in the United States.
a mental illness, being raised by a mother experi-
encing health problems, and being raised by a
mother who feels socially isolated. References
Our findings are consistent with prior work Andreassen, C., Fletcher, P., & Park, J. (2007). Early Child-
hypothesizing that a larger oral vocabulary helps hood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort (ECLS-B): Psycho-
children experience greater achievement and metric report for the 2-year data collection. Washington,
behavior (e.g., Perfetti & Stafura, 2014), thereby DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
1368 Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, Hammer, and Maczuga

Anthopolos, R., Edwards, S. E., & Miranda, M. L. (2013). longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99,
Effects of maternal prenatal smoking and birth out- 349–368. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.2.349
comes extending into the normal range on academic Farkas, G., & Beron, K. (2004). The detailed age trajectory
performance in fourth grade in North Carolina, USA. of oral vocabulary knowledge: Differences by class and
Pediatric and Perinatal Epidemiology, 27, 564–574. race. Social Science Research, 33, 464–497. doi:10.1016/
doi:10.1111/ppe.12081 j.ssresearch.2003.08.001
Bayley, N. (1993). Bayley Scales of Infant Development (2nd Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, J., Bates, E., Thal, D., & Pe-
ed.). New York, NY: Psychological Corporation. thick, S. (1994). Variability in early communicative
Bradley, R. H., & Caldwell, B. M. (1984). The HOME development. Monographs of the Society for Research in
inventory and family demographics. Developmental Psy- Child Development, 59(5). doi:10.2307/1166093
chology, 20, 315–320. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.20.2.315 Fenson, L., Dale, P., Reznick, J., Thal, D., & Bates, E.
Breaux, R. P., Harvey, E. A., & Lugo-Candelas, C. I. (1993). The Macarthur Communicative Development Inven-
(2013). The role of parent psychopathology in the tories: User’s guide and technical manual. Baltimore, MD:
development of preschool children with behavior prob- Brookes.
lems. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, Fernald, A., Marchman, V. A., & Weisleder, A. (2013).
43, 777–790. doi:10.1080/15374416.2013.836451 SES differences in language processing skill and vocab-
Buck, K. R. (1997). A comparison of three measures of social/ ulary are evident at 18 months. Developmental Science,
emotional development of infants, toddlers, and preschoolers. 16, 234–248. doi:10.1111/desc.12019
Unpublished dissertation, University of Alabama, Bir- Fitzpatrick, C., & Pagani, L. S. (2012). Toddler working
mingham. memory skills predict kindergarten school readiness.
Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Hilger, N., Saez, E., Whitmore Intelligence, 40, 205–212. doi:10.1016/j.intell.2011.11.007
Schanzenbach, D., & Yagan, D. (2011). How does your Ganger, J., & Brent, M. R. (2004). Reexamining the vocab-
kindergarten classroom affect your earnings? Evidence ulary spurt. Developmental Psychology, 40, 621–632.
from Project STAR. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, doi:10.1037/0012-1649.40.4.621
1593–1660. doi:10.1093/qje/qjr041 Guo, G., & Harris, K. M. (2000). The mechanisms mediat-
Christakis, D. A., Zimmerman, F. J., DiGiuseppe, D. L., & ing the effects of poverty on children’s intellectual
McCarty, C. A. (2004). Early television exposure and development. Demography, 37, 431–447. doi:10.1353/
subsequent attentional problems in children. Pediatrics, dem.2000.0005
113, 708–713. doi:10.1542/peds.113.4.708 Hack, M., Klein, N. K., & Taylor, H. G. (1995). Long-term
Cole, P. M., Armstrong, L. M., & Pemberton, C. K. (2010). developmental outcomes of low birth weight infants.
The role of language in the development of emotion Future of Children, 5, 176–196. doi:10.2307/1602514
regulation. In S. D. Calkins & M. A. Bell (Eds.), Child Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in
development at the intersection of emotion and cognition the everyday experience of young American children. Balti-
(pp. 59–77). Washington, DC: American Psychological more, MD: Brookes.
Association. Heckman, J. J., & Masterov, D. V. (2007). The productiv-
Davidse, N. J., De Jong, M. T., & Bus, A. G. (2014). ity argument for investing in young children. Review of
Explaining common variance shared by early numeracy Agricultural Economics, 29, 446–493. doi:10.1111/j.1467-
and literacy. Reading and Writing, 27, 631–648. 9353.2007.00359.x
doi:10.1007/s11145-013-9465-0 Hillemeier, M., Farkas, G., Morgan, P. L., Martin, M., &
DeNavas-Walt, C., Proctor, B. D., & Smith, J. C. (2013). Maczuga, S. (2009). Disparities in the prevalence of cog-
Income, poverty, and health insurance coverage in the Uni- nitive delay: How early do they appear? Pediatric &
ted States: 2012 (U.S. Census Bureau No. P60–245). Perinatal Epidemiology, 23, 186–198. doi:10.1111/j.1365-
Washington, DC: US Government Printing. 3016.2008.01006.x
Dickinson, D. K., Golinkoff, R. M., & Hirsh-Pasek, K. Hoff, E. (2013). Interpreting the early language trajectories
(2010). Speaking out for language: Why language is of children from low-SES and language minority homes:
central to reading development. Educational Researcher, Implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental
39, 305–310. doi:10.3102/0013189X10370204 Psychology, 49, 4–14. doi:10.1037/a0027238
Duncan, G. J., Dowsett, C. J., Claessens, A., Magnuson, K., Hoff, E., Laursen, B., & Bridges, K. (2012). Measurement
Huston, A. C., Klebanov, P., & Japel, C. (2007). School and model building in studying the influence of socio-
readiness and later achievement. Developmental Psychol- economic status on child development. In M. Lewis &
ogy, 43, 1428–1446. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.6.1428 L. Mayes (Eds.), A developmental environmental measure-
Eisenberg, N., Sadovsky, A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2005). ment handbook (pp. 590–606). New York, NY: Cam-
Associations of emotion-related regulation with lan- bridge University Press.
guage skills, emotion knowledge, and academic out- Hoover, W. A., & Gough, P. B. (1990). The simple view
comes. New Directions for Child and Adolescent of reading. Reading and Writing, 2, 127–160.
Development, 109, 109–118. doi:10.1002/cd.143 doi:10.1007/BF00401799
Ennemoser, M., & Schneider, W. (2007). Relations of tele- Horwitz, S. M., Irwin, J. R., Briggs-Gowan, M. J., Bosson
vision viewing and reading: Findings from a 4-year Heenan, J. M., Mendoza, J., & Carter, A. S. (2003).
 24-Month-Old Children’s Oral Vocabulary Knowledge 1369

Language delay in a community cohort of young chil- learning difficulties in mathematics. Journal of Learning
dren. Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adoles- Disabilities, 42, 306–321. doi:10.1177/0022219408331037
cent Psychiatry, 42, 932–940. doi:10.1097/01.CHI.000004 Moye, L. E. (2008). The multiple comparison issue in health
6889.27264.5E care research. In C. R. Rao, J. P. Miller, & D. C. Rao
Iruka, I. U., LaForett, D. R., & Odom, E. C. (2012). Exam- (Eds.), Handbook of statistics: Epidemiology and medical
ining the validity of the family investment and stress statistics (Vol. 27, pp. 616–655). New York, NY: Elsevier.
models and relationship to children’s school readiness Najarian, M., Snow, K., Lennon, J., & Kinsey, S. (2010).
across five cultural groups. Journal of Family Psychology, Early Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth Cohort (ECLS-
26, 359–370. doi:10.1037/a0028290 B), preschool–kindergarten 2007 psychometric report (NCES
Klebanov, P. K., Brooks-Gunn, J., & McCormick, M. C. 2010-009). Washington, DC: National Center for Educa-
(1994). Classroom behavior of very low birth weight tion Statistics.
elementary school children. Pediatrics, 94, 700–708. National Early Literacy Panel. (2008). Developing early lit-
Koolstra, C., & Van der Voort, T. (1996). Longitudinal eracy: Report of the National Early Literacy Panel. Jessup,
effects of television on children’s leisure time reading: MD: National Institute for Literacy.
A test of three explanatory models. Human Communica- National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
tion Research, 23, 4–35. doi:10.1111/j.1468- ment Early Child Care Research Network. (2003). Does
2958.1996.tb00385.x amount of time spent in childcare predict socioemotion-
LeFevre, J., Fast, L., Skwarchuk, S., Smith-Chant, B., Bi- al adjustment during the transition to kindergarten?
sanz, J., Kamawar, D., & Penner-Wilger, M. (2010). Child Development, 74, 976–1005.
Pathways to mathematics: Longitudinal predictors of National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop-
performance. Child Development, 81, 1753–1767. ment Early Child Care Research Network. (2005). Path-
doi:10.1111/j.1467- 8624.2010.01508.x ways to reading: The role of oral language in the
Lesaux, N. K. (2012). Reading and reading instruction for transition to reading. Developmental Psychology, 41, 428–
children from low-income and non-English-speaking 442. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.41.2.428
households. The Future of Children, 22, 73–88. Nord, C., Edwards, B., Andreassen, C., Green, J., & Wall-
doi:10.1353/foc.2012.0010 ner-Allen, K. (2006). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study,
Levelt, W. J. M., Roelofs, A., & Meyer, A. S. (1999). A the- Birth Cohort (ECLS-B), User’s manual for the ECLS-B lon-
ory of lexical access in speech production. Behavioral gitudinal 9-month-2-year data file and electronic codebook
and Brain Sciences, 22, 1–75. doi:10.1017/S0140525 (NCES 2006–046). Washington, DC: National Center for
X99001776 Education Statistics.
Li-Grining, C., Votruba-Drzal, E., Maldonado-Carreno, C., Ouellette, G. P. (2006). What’s meaning got to do with it:
& Haas, K. (2010). Children’s early approaches to learn- The role of vocabulary in word reading and reading
ing and academic trajectories through fifth grade. comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98,
Developmental Psychology, 46, 1062–1077. doi:10.1037/ 554–566. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.554
a0020066 Pagani, L. S., Fitzpatrick, C., & Barnett, T. A. (2013). Early
Lynch, J. L. (2011). Infant health, race/ethnicity, and early childhood television viewing and kindergarten entry
educational outcomes using the ECLS-B. Sociological readiness. Pediatric Research, 74, 350–355. doi:10.1038/
Inquiry, 81, 499–526. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2011.00 pr.2013.105
390.x Pan, B. A., Rowe, M. L., Singer, J. D., & Snow, C. E.
Mani, A., Mullainathan, S., Shafir, E., & Zhao, J. (2013). (2005). Maternal correlates of growth in toddler vocab-
Poverty impedes cognitive function. Science, 341, 976– ulary production in low-income families. Child Develop-
980. doi:10.1126/science.1238041 ment, 76, 763–782. doi:10.1111/1467-8624.00498-i1
McLoyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and Paulson, J. F., Keefe, H. A., & Leiferman, J. A. (2009).
child development. American Psychologist, 53, 185–204. Early parental depression and child language develop-
doi:10.1037/0003-066X.53.2.185 ment. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 50, 254–
McMurray, B. (2007). Defusing the vocabulary explosion. 262. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2008.01973.x
Science, 317, 631. doi:10.1126/science.1144073 Pennington, B. F., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2009). Relations
Menting, B., Van Lier, P. A. C., & Koot, H. M. (2010). among speech, language, and reading disorders. Annual
Language skills, peer rejection, and the development of Review of Psychology, 60, 283–306. doi:10.1146/annu-
externalizing behavior from kindergarten to fourth rev.psych.60.110707.163548
grade. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Perfetti, C. A., & Hart, L. (2001). The lexical basis of com-
Allied Disciplines, 52, 72–79. doi:10.1111/j.1469- prehension skill. In D. S. Gorfien (Ed.), On the conse-
7610.2010.02279 quences of meaning selection: Perspectives on resolving
Mitchell, A. M., & Brady, S. A. (2013). The effect of vocabu- lexical ambiguity (pp. 67–86) Washington, DC: American
lary knowledge on novel word identificaiton. Annals of Psychological Association.
Dyslexia, 63, 201–216. doi:10.1007/s11881-013-0080-1 Perfetti, C., & Stafura, J. (2014). Word knowledge in a the-
Morgan, P. L., Farkas, G., & Wu, Q. (2009). Five-year ory of reading comprehension. Scientific Studies of Read-
growth trajectories of kindergarten children with ing, 18, 22–37. doi:10.1080/10888438.2013.827687
1370 Morgan, Farkas, Hillemeier, Hammer, and Maczuga

Purpura, D. J., Hume, L. E., Sims, D. M., & Lonigan, C. J. Spelke, E. S., & Tsivkin, S. (2001). Language and number:
(2011). Early literacy and early numeracy: The value of A bilingual training study. Cognition, 78, 45–88.
including early literacy skills in the prediction of doi:10.1016/S0010-0277(00)00108-6
numeracy development. Journal of Experimental Child Stolt, S., Haataja, L., Lapinleimu, H., & Lehtonen, L.
Psychology, 110, 647–658. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.07.004 (2008). The early lexical development and its predictive
Qi, C. H., & Kaiser, A. P. (2004). Problem behaviors of value to language skills at 2 years in very-low-birth-
low-income children with language delays: An observa- weight children. Journal of Communication Disorders, 42,
tion study. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing 107–123. doi:10.1016/j.jcomdis.2008
Research, 47, 595–610. doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2004/046) Storch, S. A., & Whitehurst, G. J. (2002). Oral language
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report and code-related precursors to reading: Evidence from
depression scale for research in the general population. a longitudinal structural model. Developmental Psychol-
Applied Psychological Measurement, 1, 385–401. ogy, 38, 934–947. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.38.6.934
doi:10.1177/014662167700100306 Tomblin, B. J., & Zhang, X. (2006). The dimensionality of
Raghunathan, T. E., Solenberger, P. W., & Van Hoewyk, language ability in school-age children. Journal of
J. (2002). IVEware: Imputation and variance estimation soft- Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 49, 1193–1208.
ware. Ann Arbor, MI: Survey Methodology Program, doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2006/086)
Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, Vaughn, B. E., Kopp, C. B., & Krakow, J. B. (1984). The
University of Michigan. emergence and consolidation of self-control from eigh-
Rescorla, L., Ross, G. S., & McClure, S. (2007). Language teen to thirty months of age: Normative trends and
delay and behavioral/emotional problems in toddlers: individual differences. Child Development, 55, 990–1004.
Findings from two developmental clinics. Journal of doi:10.2307/1130151
Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50, 1063–1078. Verhoeven, L., vanLeeuwe, J. &., & Vermeer, A. (2011).
doi:10.1044/1092-4388(2007/074) Vocabulary growth and reading development across
Rowe, M. L. (2008). Child-directed speech: Relation to the elementary school years. Scientific Studies of Reading,
socioeconomic status, knowledge of child development 15, 8–25. doi: 10.1080/10888438.2011.536125
and child vocabulary skill. Journal of Child Language, 35, Walker, D., Greenwood, C., Hart, B., & Carta, J. (1994).
185–205. doi:10.1017/S0305000907008343 Prediction of school outcomes based on early langauge
Sabol, T. J., & Pianta, R. C. (2012). Patterns of school readi- production and socioeconomic factors. Child Develop-
ness forecast achievement and socioemotional develop- ment, 65, 606–621. doi:10.2307/1131404
ment at the end of elementary school. Child Development, Weisleder, A., & Fernald, A. (2013). Talking to children
83, 282–299. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2011.01678.x matters: Early language experience strengthens process-
Schatschneider, C., Fletcher, J., Francis, D., Carlson, C., & ing and builds vocabulary. Psychological Science, 24,
Foorman, B. (2004). Kindergarten prediction of reading 2143–2152. doi:10.1177/0956797613488145
skills: A longitudinal comparative analysis. Journal of Edu- Winsler, A., Diaz, R. M., McCarthy, E. M., Atencio, D. J.,
cational Psychology, 96, 265–282. doi:10.1037/0022-0663. & Chabay, L. A. (1999). Mother-child interaction, pri-
96.2.265 vate speech, and task performance in preschool chil-
Senechal, M., Ouellette, G., & Rodney, D. (2006). The mis- dren with behavior problems. Journal of Child
understood giant: On the predictive role of early vocab- Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines, 40, 891–
ulary to future reading. In S. B. Neuman, & D. 904. doi:10.1111/1469-7610.00507
Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. Zajicek-Farber, M. L. (2010). The contributions of parent-
2, pp. 173–182). New York, NY: Guilford. ing and postnatal depression on emergent language of
Sideridis, G. D., & Simos, P. (2010). What is the actual children in low-income families. Journal of Child and
correlation between expressive and receptive measures Family Studies, 19, 257–269. doi:10.1007/s10826-009-
of vocabulary? Approximating the sampling distribu- 9293-7
tion of the correlation coefficient using the bootstrap-
ping method. International Journal of Educational and
Psychological Assessment, 5, 117–133. Supporting Information
Silven, M., Poskiparta, E., Niemi, P., & Voeten, M. (2007).
Precursors of reading skill from infancy to first grade Additional supporting information may be found in
in Finnish: Continuity and change in a highly inflected the online version of this article at the publisher’s
language. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 516–531. website:
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.3.516 Appendix S1. Note on Oral Vocabulary Termi-
Skarakis-Doyle, E., Campbell, W., & Dempsey, L. (2009). nology
Identification of children with language impairment: Appendix S2. Additional Knowledge Base Lim-
Investigating the classification accuracy of the Mac-
itations
Arthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories,
Appendix S3. Multiplicity Check Information
Level III. American Journal of Speech Language Pathology,
18, 277–288. doi:10.1044/1058-0360(2009/08- 0035)