Search

This study examines the dimensionality of and relationships between two subscales from the British Ability Scales – Third Edition, measuring verbal (expressive vocabulary) and non-verbal (reasoning) cognitive skills for toddlers (age three) and preschoolers (age five), in a Norwegian context across genders. Descriptive statistics revealed item selection criteria that included specific items within each subscale. Subsequently, Confirmatory Factor Analysis established the subscales’ dimensionality (Naming Vocabulary and Picture Similarities; N = 1094) and confirmed measurement invariance across genders. Further, the relationships between the verbal and non-verbal factors were investigated using correlation analysis and Structural Equation Modeling. The findings revealed that the verbal factor at age three strongly predicted the verbal factor at age five and significantly influenced the non-verbal factor at age five. The non-verbal factor at age three exhibited a moderate predictive relationship with the non-verbal factor at age five, and did not significantly predict the verbal factor at age five. In terms of gender differences, girls showed higher scores on the verbal factor at age three, and a stronger correlation between the non-verbal factor at age three and the verbal factor at age five. In summary, this research provides valuable insights into cognitive skill measurement and development in a Norwegian context and highlights possible variations across gender. The study’s findings, limitations, and implications are discussed.

Abstract Background Young people who fail to develop language as expected face significant challenges in all aspects of life. Unfortunately, language disorders are common, either as a distinct condition (e.g., Developmental Language Disorder) or as a part of another neurodevelopmental condition (e.g., autism). Finding ways to attenuate language problems through intervention has the potential to yield great benefits not only for the individual but also for society as a whole. Objectives This meta‐analytic review examined the effect of oral language interventions for children with neurodevelopmental disorders. Search Methods The last electronic search was conducted in April 2022. Selection Criteria Intervention studies had to target language skills for children from 2 to 18 years of age with Developmental Language Disorder, autism, intellectual disability, Down syndrome, Fragile X syndrome, and Williams syndrome in randomised controlled trials or quasi‐experimental designs. Control groups had to include business‐as‐usual, waiting list, passive or active conditions. However, we excluded studies in which the active control group received a different type, delivery, or dosage of another language intervention. Eligible interventions implemented explicit and structured activities (i.e., explicit instruction of vocabulary, narrative structure or grammatical rules) and/or implicit and broad activities (i.e., shared book reading, general language stimulation). The intervention studies had to assess language skills in receptive and/or expressive modalities. Data Collection and Analysis The search provided 8195 records after deduplication. Records were screened by title and abstract, leading to full‐text examinations of 448 records. We performed Correlated and Hierarchical Effects models and ran a retrospective power analysis via simulation. Publication bias was assessed via p‐curve and precision‐effect estimate. Main Results We examined 38 studies, with 46 group comparisons and 108 effects comparing pre‐/post‐tests and eight studies, with 12 group comparisons and 21 effects at follow‐up. The results showed a mean effect size of d = 0.27 at the post‐test and d = 0.18 at follow‐up. However, there was evidence of publication bias and overestimation of the mean effects. Effects from the meta‐analysis were significantly related to these elements: (1) receptive vocabulary and omnibus receptive measures showed smaller effect sizes relative to expressive vocabulary, grammar, expressive and receptive discourse, and omnibus expressive tests; and (2) the length of the intervention, where longer sessions conducted over a longer period of time were more beneficial than brief sessions and short‐term interventions. Neither moderators concerning participants’ characteristics (children's diagnosis, diagnostic status, age, sex, and non‐verbal cognitive ability and severity of language impairment), nor those regarding of the treatment components and implementation of the language interventions (intervention content, setting, delivery agent, session structure of the intervention or total number of sessions) reached significance. The same occurred to indicators of study quality. The risk of bias assessment showed that reporting quality for the studies examined in the review was poor. Authors’ Conclusions In sum, the current evidence base is promising but inconclusive. Pre‐registration and replication of more robust and adequately powered trials, which include a wider range of diagnostic conditions, together with more long‐term follow‐up comparisons, are needed to drive evidence‐based practice and policy.

IntroductionThis study examined the structural validity of the teacher-report Strength and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) in Norwegian preschoolers aged 3–6 years. We tested the original five-factor structure, the five-factor structure with two broader second-order factors, and a three-factor structure, all suggested in the literature. Since the positively worded items in SDQ have been shown to introduce noise, we also examined all three structures with a positive construal method factor for these items.MethodsPreschool teachers from 43 preschools completed the SDQ questionnaire for 1,142 children [48% girls, mean age 4.3 (SD 0.9) years]. Confirmatory factor analyses were used to estimate and compare the six models. Measurement invariance was tested across sex (multi-group approach) and age (multiple-indicator multiple-cause approach).ResultsThe original five-factor structure of SDQ was supported, where the model fit improved when including a method factor for positively worded items. Both models showed scalar invariance across sex and age. The second-order and the three-factor structures were not supported.ConclusionWe recommend using the original five-factor structure when using SDQ for both clinical and research purposes in young children and adding a method factor when using structural equation modeling.

Purpose: This longitudinal study examined the contribution of preschool morphological awareness to word reading skills and reading comprehension, as well as to the developmental change of reading ability beyond other well-established oral language and cognitive predictors. A distinction was made between the domains of inflectional and derivational morphology. Method: Two hundred and fifty-nine Norwegian-speaking children (46% female) with a mean age of 5.5 years were assessed in preschool on language measures and again in Grades 1 and 3 on measures of word reading accuracy and fluency and in Grades 3 and 4 on reading comprehension. We fit latent change score models with preschool predictors using parceling to control for measurement error. Results: We found a unique contribution of preschool morphological awareness to reading comprehension in Grade 3, but no unique contribution to Grade 1 decoding. Neither awareness of inflections nor awareness of derivations predicted developmental change in word reading fluency between Grades 1 and 3 or change in reading comprehension between Grades 3 and 4 beyond the effect of control variables. Conclusion: Our findings confirm the relevance of morphological awareness only for early attainment in reading comprehension and highlight the importance of accounting for measurement error in studying associations among variables aiming to discover specific contributions.