Improving Language and Enriching Home Literacy: Positive Influences of a Home Visiting

Program with Low-income, Latino Families

Mark S. Innocenti, Lisa K. Boyce, Lori A. Roggman, James F. Akers, Vonda K. Jump & Gina A. Cook

Early Intervention Research InstituteCenter for Persons with Disabilities

Utah State UniversityLogan, UT 84322-6580

www.eiri.usu.edu

This research was supported under grant R01 HD39501 as part of the Developing English Literacy in Spanish-Speaking Children (DELSS) Network, funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and the Institute of Education Sciences. Data contained in these slides is the property of the authors and may not be quoted or reproduced without the written permission of the authors.

Presented at the Society for Research in Child Development

Boston, MA

March 30, 2007

EIRIEIRIEIRIEIRI

Children from Spanish-speaking families are at risk for academic failure and reading difficulties appear to be a major factor (GAO, 2006; NCES, 2003). Vocabulary is a key predictor of reading comprehension outcomes for English Language Learners (ELLs) (Proctor, Carlo, August, & Snow, 2005). Spanish-speaking children are delayed in both Spanish and English vocabulary skills at preschool entry, and language skills remain low to below average at preschool exit (Proctor et al., 2005; Tabors, Paez, & Lopez, 2003). Vocabulary scores of five-year-olds predict reading outcomes at first grade and into elementary grades (Dickinson & Tabors, 2001). Other research suggests a limited focus on language and literacy in these children’s home environments (Boyce et al., 2005; Tabors et al., 2003; Yaroz & Barnett, 2001).

Literature Review

The research on low-income, Spanish speaking children suggests the need to begin intervention prior to preschool if we are to improve later academic outcomes.

Home visiting programs focused on home language and literacy may be a viable option (cf, Sweet & Applebaum, 2004).

Home visiting intervention programs specific to this population need to be evaluated.

Problem Statement

Using a two-group, quasi-experimental design:

Do children who receive the BELLS home visiting intervention experience richer home language and literacy environments than children in the comparison group?

Do children who receive the BELLS home visiting intervention show greater language growth in their total language growth in both English and Spanish than children in the comparison group?

Do program effects maintain after controlling for family income, maternal vocabulary, and maternal supportiveness (in parent-child interactions)?

Research Questions

total amount of conversation with children both child-directed speech and responding to children’s speech (Caravolas & Bruck, 1993; Whitehurst & Lonigan, 1998),use of active book reading with children (Arnold & Whitehurst, 1994; DeTemple, 1999; Goldenberg, 1994; Mason, 1992; Valdez-Menchaca & Whitehurst, 1992),use of rhyming and other phonological games (Bryant et al., 1990; Dickinson et al., 1999),number of available literacy materials (Mason, 1992; Snow, 1994),adult use of print and other literacy activities (Goldenberg, 1987),expression of warmth and positive affect during literacy activities and conversation (Leseman & de Jong, 1998).

What Were the Intervention Objectives

Using a weekly home visiting model, to increase:

VocabularyWoodcock-Munoz Picture Vocabulary (Woodcock & Muñoz-Sandoval, 1993

•Administered in both English and Spanish for children, Spanish for mothers.•Children’s English and Spanish scores were combined as a more complete indicator of their total vocabulary size (Boyce et al., 2004; cf. Pearson, 1998).

Home Literacy EnvironmentStony Brook Reading Survey (adapted from Whitehurst, 1993) (reading frequency)Language and Literacy subscale of the HOME (Caldwell & Bradley, 1984) (learning/literacy environment)

Maternal SensitivityVideotaped observation of book sharing task combining categories on maternal non-intrusiveness and warmth.

MeasuresData collected at 18, 24, & 36 months:

How do the groups compare?Descriptive Statistics for Predictors, Covariates, and Dependent Variables

Intervention (N = 47)──────────────────────

Comparison (N = 104)─────────────────────

Variables M SD Range M SD Range p value

Mother

Age 31.87 6.26 16.89-44.60 28.75 5.40 18.95-44.92 .00

Education 9.45 3.01 2-16 8.95 2.93 3-16 .34

Income $1,560.87 $965.05 0-$4,000 $1,235.29 $820.75 0-$4,000 .04

Spanish vocabulary (raw score) 52.53 7.86 28-40 44.57 8.62 16-41 .00

Supportiveness 9.16 2.48 3-13 8.58 1.93 3-13 .10

Reading frequency 2.82 .48 1.83-3.50 2.22 .47 1.11-3.31 .00

Learning/literacy environment .76 .14 .22-1.00 .67 .12 .31-.92 .00

Only families that preferred assessment in Spanish and who spoke at least half the time to their children in Spanish were selected as subjects.

What is the relation among key variables?Intercorrelations Among Maternal Predictors, Covariates,

and Dependent Variables

Variables Age Education IncomeSpanish Vocabulary Support

Reading frequency

1. Age

2. Education -.02

3. Income .13 .27**

4. Spanish vocabulary (w score) .24** .27** .19*

5. Supportiveness -.07 .08 .13 .27**

6. Reading frequency .12 .12 .23** .32** .09

7. Learning/literacy environment .10 .23** .36** .34** .07 .53**

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

How well does group status predict three dependent variables?

Regression of Intervention Group Status with Income and Maternal Vocabulary on Reading Frequency, the Learning/Literacy Environment, and Maternal Supportiveness for the Spanish-Speaking Sample

Reading frequency────────────────

Learning/literacy environment──────────────

Maternal supportiveness────────────

Variables (entered together) B SE β B SE β B SE β

Intervention group .53 .09 .45*** .06 .02 .22** .20 .40 .04

Income .00 .00 .12 .00 .00 .28*** .00 .00 .08

Maternal vocabulary .01 .00 .16* .00 .00 .23** .04 .02 .24**

R2 .31 .25 .08

F 21.49*** 15.82*** 4.04**

* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

What changes are there in children’s language growth over time?

Hierarchical Linear Model of Children’s Language Growth From 12 to 36 Months of Age

Model 2 Model 3 Model 4

Level 1: SWPR1=P1*(AGEC12)+E

Level 2: P1=b10+r1

Level 1: SWPR1=P1*(AGEC12)+E

Level 2: P1=b10+b11*(SITE)+r1

Level 1: SWPR1=P1*(AGEC12)+E

Level 2: P1=b10+b11*(SITE+B12* (INCSUM) +B13*(WMW011)+R1

Coef SE Coef SE Coef SE

Fixed effects—parameter estimates

Initial mean child vocabulary (SWPR1, B00)

Mean child vocabulary growth (SWPR1, B10) 0.633* 0.016 0.601* 0.019 0.607* 0.019

Intervention group (SITE, B11) 0.111* 0.035 0.091* 0.036

Income (INCSUM, B12) 0.000 0.000

Maternal vocabulary (WMW011, B13) 0.002 0.001

Random effects—variance estimates

Level 1 within0-child variance (E) 4.515 4.510 4.513

Level 2 b/w ch initial vocab variance (SWPR1, R0)

Level 2 b/w ch vocab growth variance (AGEC12 slope, R1) 0.0355* 0.033 0.033

Deviance 2182.609 2172.670 2169.856

Parameters 3 4 6

Chi sq. df for deviance diff with model before 1.37087,3 9.93897,1 2.814,2

* p < .05

The BELLS intervention had a positive impact on summed language growth and on the home language and literacy environment.

Although there are demographic differences between the intervention and comparison groups, the BELLS intervention had a positive and statistically significant effect after controlling for mother language skills and family income.

A home visiting program can be a successful approach to increasing language skills and to improve the home language/literacy environment for low-income, Spanish speaking children.

Our next steps will be to determine the sustainability of these effects as children move into preschool environments.

Conclusions

For more information contact:Mark Innocenti

mark.innocenti@usu.edu

For a copy of this poster:

http://www.eiri.usu.edu/projects/srcd

The BELLS USU TeamSome of the Intervention Team

Thank you!