Search

Purpose: The goal of this study was to investigate the etiologic basis for the association between deficits in phonological memory (PM) and vocabulary in school-age children., Method: Children with deficits in PM or vocabulary were identified within the International Longitudinal Twin Study (ILTS; Samuelsson et al., 2005). The ILTS includes 1,045 twin pairs (between the ages of 5 and 8 years) from the United States, Australia, and Scandinavia. The authors applied the DeFries-Fulker ( DeFries & Fulker, 1985, 1988) regression method to determine whether problems in PM and vocabulary tend to co-occur because of overlapping genes, overlapping environmental risk factors, or both., Results: Among children with isolated PM deficits, the authors found significant bivariate heritability of PM and vocabulary weaknesses both within and across time. However, when probands were selected for a vocabulary deficit, there was no evidence for bivariate heritability. In this case, it appears that the PM-vocabulary relationship is caused by common shared environmental experiences., Conclusions: The findings are consistent with previous research on the heritability of specific language impairment and suggest that there are etiologic subgroups of children with low vocabulary for different reasons, 1 being more influenced by genes and another being more influenced by environment.

This first cross-country twin study of individual differences in reading growth from post-kindergarten to post-second grade analyzed data from 487 twin pairs from the United States, 267 twin pairs from Australia, and 280 twin pairs from Scandinavia. Data from two reading measures were fit to biometric latent growth models. Individual differences for the reading measures at post-kindergarten in the United States and Australia were due primarily to genetic influences and to both genetic and shared environmental influences in Scandinavia. In contrast, individual differences in growth generally had large genetic influences in all countries. These results suggest that genetic influences are largely responsible for individual differences in early reading development. In addition, the timing of the start of formal literacy instruction may affect the etiology of individual differences in early reading development but have only limited influence on the etiology of individual differences in growth., (Copyright © 2013 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)