Relations Among Maternal Literacy Beliefs, Home Literacy Practices, and the Emergent Literacy Skills of Preschoolers With Specific Language Impairment

This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 09 October 2014, At: 17:09Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH,UK

Early Education andDevelopmentPublication details, including instructions forauthors and subscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heed20

Relations Among MaternalLiteracy Beliefs, Home LiteracyPractices, and the EmergentLiteracy Skills of PreschoolersWith Specific LanguageImpairmentLori E. Skibbe a , Laura M. Justice b , Tricia A.Zucker c & Anita S. McGinty ca Department of Psychology , University of Michiganb College of Education and Human Ecology, OhioState Universityc Curry School of Education, University of VirginiaPublished online: 28 Feb 2008.

To cite this article: Lori E. Skibbe , Laura M. Justice , Tricia A. Zucker & Anita S.McGinty (2008) Relations Among Maternal Literacy Beliefs, Home Literacy Practices,and the Emergent Literacy Skills of Preschoolers With Specific Language Impairment,Early Education and Development, 19:1, 68-88, DOI: 10.1080/10409280701839015

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409280701839015

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all theinformation (the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform.However, Taylor & Francis, our agents, and our licensors make norepresentations or warranties whatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness,or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions and views

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/heed20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/10409280701839015

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10409280701839015

expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors, andare not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of theContent should not be relied upon and should be independently verified withprimary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for anylosses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of theContent.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan,sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone isexpressly forbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found athttp://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

LITERACY BELIEFS AND PRACTICESSKIBBE, JUSTICE, ZUCKER, MCGINTY

Relations Among Maternal LiteracyBeliefs, Home Literacy Practices, and theEmergent Literacy Skills of Preschoolers

With Specific Language Impairment

Lori E. SkibbeDepartment of Psychology,

University of Michigan

Laura M. JusticeCollege of Education and Human Ecology,

Ohio State University

Tricia A. Zucker and Anita S. McGintyCurry School of Education,

University of Virginia

Self-reported maternal literacy beliefs and home literacy practices were comparedfor families of children with typicially developing language skills (TL, n = 52) andspecific language impairment (SLI, n = 56). Additionally, the present work examinedwhether maternal beliefs and practices predicted children’s print-related knowledge.Mothers filled out 2 questionnaires asking about their literacy beliefs and practiceswhile children’s print-related knowledge was assessed directly. Results indicated thatmothers of children with SLI held somewhat less positive beliefs about literacy andreported engaging in fewer literacy practices compared to mothers of children withTL. For the entire sample, maternal literacy practices and beliefs predicted children’sprint-related knowledge, although much of this association was accounted for by ma-ternal education. Subgroup analyses focused specifically on children with SLIshowed there to be no relation between maternal literacy beliefs and practices and

EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT, 19(1), 68–88Copyright © 2008 Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 1040-9289 print / 1556-6935 onlineDOI: 10.1080/10409280701839015

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Lori Skibbe, Department of Psychol-ogy, 530 Church Street, Room 1044, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1043. E-mail:[email protected]

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

children’s print-related knowledge. The present findings suggest that the home liter-acy experiences of children with SLI, and the way that these experiences impactprint-related knowledge, may differ in important ways from typical peers.

The present study examined the interrelations among maternal literacy beliefs,home literacy practices, and the emergent literacy skills of preschoolers with spe-cific language impairment (SLI). The rationale for this research was predicated onresearch findings showing that children’s language abilities during the preschoolperiod are consistently linked to reading outcomes within the elementary grades(e.g., Catts, Fey, Tomblin, & Zhang, 2002; Tomblin, Zhang, Buckwalter, & Catts,2000). Likewise, research has consistently indicated that preschoolers with under-developed language skills, a population that includes children with SLI, exhibitsubstantially elevated risks for school-age reading disability (e.g., Bishop & Ad-ams, 1990; Snowling, Bishop, & Stothard, 2000). Children with SLI exhibit clini-cally depressed language skills in the absence of other sensory, neurological, orphysical problems, and epidemiological estimates suggest that this condition af-fects approximately 7% to 13% of young children (La Paro, Justice, Skibbe, &Pianta, 2004; Tomblin, Records, & Zhang, 1996). Children with SLI often exhibitsignificant delays in the attainment of important emergent literacy skills (e.g.,Boudreau & Hedberg, 1999; Justice, Bowles, & Skibbe, 2006) and experiencehigher rates of reading disability relative to their peers without disabilities (e.g.,Catts et al., 2002; Snowling et al., 2000; Stothard, Snowling, Bishop, Chipchase, &Kaplan, 1998).

The well-established association between early language difficulties and chal-lenges in literacy development suggests the importance of studying both develop-mental and contextual factors that may influence the emergent literacy develop-ment of young children with SLI. As one developmental factor of particularimportance, researchers have suggested that children with SLI exhibit develop-mental weaknesses in phonological processing, a skill that facilitates reading and,when underdeveloped, contributes to developmental reading disorders (e.g., Shay-witz & Shaywitz, 2003; Shaywitz et al., 1998; Stothard et al., 1998; Tannock &Schachar, 1996). Phonological processing deficits are viewed as a primary causeof dyslexia (see Stanovich, 1988; Vellutino, Fletcher, Snowling, & Scanlon, 2004),although reading difficulties have also been linked to general language deficits, es-pecially for children with a family history of dyslexia (Scarborough, 1990, 1991;Snowling, Gallagher, & Frith, 2003). Several lines of research have indicated thatgenetic and phonological vulnerabilities interact with other cognitive and environ-mental factors to produce an elevated risk for reading difficulties among childrenwith developmental language problems (Catts & Kahmi, 2005; Roberts & Bur-chinal, 2001; Vellutino et al., 2004).

Contextual factors, particularly qualitative aspects of the childrearing environ-ment, also influence children’s development of emergent literacy skills. Previous

LITERACY BELIEFS AND PRACTICES 69

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

emergent literacy research has emphasized the importance of this area of scholar-ship, generating a large body of research on the literacy-related interactions be-tween caregivers and their children within the home environment. These studieshave examined, for instance, the scaffolding behaviors of mothers during book-reading and joint-writing events (e.g., Aram & Levin, 2002; DeLoache & DeMen-doza, 1987; Martin, 1998), the frequency of parent–child shared storybook reading(e.g., Sénéchal, LeFevre, Thomas, & Daley, 1998; Sonnenschein & Munsterman,2002), and characteristics of mothers that appear to moderate the quality and fre-quency of home-based literacy activities (Benasich & Brooks-Gunn, 1996; Fitz-gerald, Spiegel, & Cunningham, 1991). Structural aspects of the home environ-ment, such as presence of books and writing materials, have also been associatedwith children’s emergent literacy abilities (e.g., Roberts, Jurgens, & Burchinal,2005).

Parents’ literacy practices within the home clearly play a key role in children’sliteracy development, and families can act as an important sponsor of literacy(Brandt, 2001) by using a variety of practices that facilitate preschoolers’emergentliteracy development, including reciting nursery rhymes (Maclean, Bryant, &Bradley, 1987), teaching book and print conventions (Adams, 1990; Justice &Ezell, 2000), encouraging invented spelling through functional or purposeful writ-ing experiences (Aram & Levin, 2002; Richgels, 2001), making shared-readingexperiences routine (e.g., Bus, van IJzendoorn, & Pellegrini, 1995; Leseman & deJong, 1998), and developing narrative and language skills through family dinner-time practices (Serpell, Sonnenschein, Baker, & Ganapathy, 2002). In addition,some parents may take on a “family as educator” role by explicitly teaching theirchildren about literacy forms and functions (Bennett, Weigel, & Martin, 2002,p. 297). In a study involving 143 preschool children and their parents, Bennett et al.found that parental report of more frequent home reading activities as well as morepositive parental beliefs about literacy were positively associated with children’semergent literacy skills using the Child’s Emergent Literacy Task (Abt Associates,1991). The self-report parent measures included a literacy practices questionnaireand the Parent Reading Belief Inventory (PRBI; DeBaryshe & Binder, 1994). Suchfindings are consistent with other reports in the literature on the link between ex-plicit parental teaching practices and children’s emergent literacy growth (Evans,Shaw, & Bell, 2000; Sénéchal, 2006; Sénéchal et al., 1998).

Previous research has indicated that the frequency with which parents engage inhome literacy practices is associated with parents’ underlying beliefs about liter-acy (Curenton & Justice, in press; DeBaryshe, 1995; Lynch, Anderson, Anderson,& Shapiro, 2006; Weigel, Martin, & Bennett, 2005). Curenton and Justice, for in-stance, recently reported a positive correlation between parents’ beliefs about theimportance of shared storybook reading in the home and the frequency with whichthey engaged in this activity with their children, using the same measures asBennett et al. (2002) in the study described previously. Curenton and Justice stud-

70 SKIBBE, JUSTICE, ZUCKER, MCGINTY

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

ied the reported home literacy practices and beliefs about literacy for 45 mothersresiding in a rural, high-poverty Appalachian community, finding a moderate cor-relation of .33 (p < .05) between the two measures. Such findings are importantgiven that researchers have shown that when parents hold more positive beliefsabout literacy, their children are more likely to have higher literacy achievement(Burchinal, Peisner-Feinberg, Pianta, & Howes, 2002; Fitzgerald et al., 1991;Serpell et al., 2002; Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998) and more advanced expressiveand receptive vocabularies (Weigel et al., 2005). The positive association betweenpositive parental beliefs and children’s literacy outcomes may arise because paren-tal “reading beliefs create an atmosphere of acceptance and warmth around liter-acy and language” (Weigel et al., 2005, p. 227). Further, the influence of positiveparental beliefs about literacy may extend to children’s own interest in reading andmotivation to read (Baker & Scher, 2002; DeBaryshe, 1995).

There are many factors associated with parents’ literacy beliefs and practices,such as mothers’ level of education (Curenton & Justice, in press; Fitzgerald et al.,1991) and cultural norms (Anderson-Yockel & Haynes, 1994). Of particular im-portance to the current study was how developmental characteristics of the child,specifically a child’s language skills, may relate to parents’ literacy beliefs andpractices. There is some evidence in the literature suggesting that parents of chil-dren with SLI may exhibit qualitatively different beliefs about literacy comparedto other parents. Most of this evidence is indirect, based on survey and observa-tional data showing that preschoolers with SLI appear to experience significantlyfewer print-related activities at home (Boudreau, 2005; C. A. Marvin & Wright,1997). Boudreau recently found that parents of preschoolers with language impair-ment reported engaging their children less often in literacy activities, such asrhyming games, than parents of typically developing children. Experts have sug-gested that parents engage their children with disabilities, including those withSLI, in less frequent home literacy experiences due to the inherent linguistic de-mands of emergent literacy activities (e.g., storybook reading) or, possibly, par-ents’ privileging of other activities more directly relevant to their children’swell-being (e.g., developing self-care abilities; see C. A. Marvin & Wright, 1997).Nonetheless, it is also possible that these differences relate to qualitatively differ-ent beliefs held by parents of children with SLI concerning the value of home liter-acy experiences for their children, given their children’s developmental difficultieswith oral language acquisition. Parents of children with SLI may have difficultiestailoring literacy activities in ways that seem appropriate for their children (Crowe,2000; Crowe, Norris, & Hoffman, 2000), and it is also possible that parents of chil-dren with SLI may find some home literacy activities, such as parent–child sharedstorybook reading, to hold less appeal if their children seem to benefit little fromthese activities or appear to dislike them (Kaderavek & Sulzby, 1998).

To contribute to this area of investigation, the current study examined theself-reported maternal literacy beliefs and home literacy practices of children with


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

SLI. The first aim was to compare the maternal literacy beliefs and practices forfamilies of children with typically developing language skills (TL) to those of chil-dren with SLI. It was hypothesized that the mothers of children with SLI would ex-hibit relatively fewer positive beliefs about literacy and would report engaging infewer home literacy practices, based on research indicating that having a child witha disability may influence parents’ literacy beliefs and practices (M. Marvin &Mirenda, 1993). The second aim was to determine whether maternal literacy be-liefs and home literacy practices served as significant predictors of children’sprint-related emergent literacy skills. Based on prior research by Bennett et al.(2002), we expected that these two features of the home literacy environmentwould be positively associated with children’s alphabet knowledge and print-con-cept knowledge. The third aim of this study focused on children with SLI as a par-ticular subgroup of children with whom researchers and practitioners are increas-ingly concerned given their substantial risks for failing to achieve skilled reading(e.g., Catts et al., 2002). Although in several analyses for the first and second aimswe conducted between-groups comparisons, our intent in our third aim was to con-sider how relations among maternal literacy practices and beliefs may associatewith literacy development specifically for this subgroup.

METHOD

Participants

A total of 108 mother–child dyads participated in the present study, of which 56children exhibited SLI and 52 children had TL. The dyads were recruited into twoseparate studies examining emergent literacy development in young children: Onestudy focused exclusively on children with SLI, whereas the other focused exclu-sively on children with TL. Both studies were conducted contemporaneously, al-though the recruitment window for the study involving children with SLI wasabout 1 year longer than the window for the TL study. For both studies, childrenand their families were recruited through pediatrician offices, preschools, HeadStart centers, and day care centers. Both studies used similar inclusionary/ex-clusionary criteria to identify child participants, with the single exception beingchild language skills, for which children with SLI were required to exhibit clini-cally depressed skills based on a standardized language assessment and childrenwith TL were expected to perform within normal limits on a standardized languagescreening.

For both studies, children were required to meet all of the following eligibilitycriteria: (a) be between 48 and 60 months of age; (b) pass a bilateral hearingscreening at 30 db for 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hz; (c) speak English as a native lan-guage and reside in homes in which English is the primary language spoken; and


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

(d) have an unremarkable sensory, motor, and neurological history as indicated byparent questionnaire. Children were also required to exhibit normal nonverbal cog-nition as indicated by a standard score of 70 or higher on the Matrices subtest of theKaufman Brief Intelligence Test (Kaufman, & Kaufman, 1990), although somechildren’s data were not formally recorded. Of the available data, children with TLhad significantly higher scores on the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test than chil-dren with SLI, t(91) = 3.19, p < .01. In addition, both groups of children were ad-ministered the Oral Vocabulary and Grammatic Completion subtests of the Test ofLanguage Development–3: Primary (TOLD-P:3; Newcomer & Hammill, 1997);these two subtests provide a quick screening of children’s expressive and receptivelanguage skills. Children with TL were required to receive a standard score of 7 orbetter (corresponding to = –1 SD of the mean) on both subtests. In addition, chil-dren with SLI were administered the full battery of the TOLD-P:3 and required toscore at or below the 10th percentile on two or more subtests and to have an overallSpoken Language or Syntax Quotient below 85. When compared to children withTL, children with SLI had significantly lower scores on the Oral Vocabulary,t(106) = 12.68, p < .001, and the Grammatic Completion, t(106) = 13.15, p < .001,subtests.

Children in the SLI group (38 boys, 18 girls) included 43 Whites, 6 AfricanAmericans, 2 Latinos, 4 children described as multiracial, and 1 described as“other.” Their mean age was 54.5 months (SD = 3.6 months; range = 48–60).Mothers reported a mean yearly household income of $67,767 (SD = $134,372).The average maternal age in this group was 34.24 years (SD = 7.21). Seven moth-ers had graduate degrees, 17 had graduated from college, 13 had partial collegetraining, 14 had earned high school diplomas, 4 had partial high school training,and 1 had completed junior high school.

Children in the TL group (27 boys, 25 girls) included 41 White, 1 AsianAmerican, and 10 children who were described as multiracial. Their mean agewas 54.02 months (SD = 3.74 months; range = 48–61). The two groups of chil-dren did not differ by gender, χ2(1, N = 108) = 2.86, p = .09, although the distribu-tion of ethnicity did significantly differ for the two groups, χ2(1, N = 108) =12.51, p = .03. There was no significant difference between the age of children inthe SLI and TL groups, t(106) = 0.66, p = .51. Mothers of the TL group reported amean average yearly household income of $86,417 (SD = $45,859), which wassignificantly higher than that reported for the SLI sample, t(107) = 7.95, p < .001.The average maternal age in this group was 35.69 years (SD = 6.74). Thirty-sixmothers had graduate degrees, 13 had graduated from college, 2 had partial col-lege training, and 1 held a high school diploma. Mothers of children with TLhad significantly more years of education than mothers of children with SLI,t(106) = 7.95, p < .001, a finding that we return to later in our main analyses.Demographic information about both groups of children can be found inTable 1.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

General Procedures

Data for each of the studies were collected during home visits conducted by trainedresearch assistants. Home visits were used to collect a variety of maternal mea-sures, primarily using questionnaires and surveys, and to conduct direct assess-ment of children. Home visits lasted approximately 120 min for the families ofchildren with SLI and about 60 min for the families of children with TL. (The dif-ference in visit length resulted primarily from differences in the language battery,as children with SLI were administered all six subtests of the TOLD-P:3, whereasthose with TL were administered only two subtests.) All children were first admin-istered the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test, then the TOLD-P:3, and finally anumber of early literacy tasks. Children were given breaks between each of the as-


TABLE 1Descriptive Information for Children With SLI and Children With TL

Variable SLI (n = 56) TL (n = 52)

Ethnicity, n (%)Non-Hispanic White 43 (77) 41 (79)African American 6 (11) 0 (0)Hispanic 2 (4) 0 (0)Asian 0 (0) 1 (2)Biracial 4 (7) 10 (19)Other 1 (2) 0 (0)

Gender, n (%)Girl 18 (32) 25 (48)Boy 38 (68) 27 (52)

Mean household income (SD)* $67,767 ($134,372) $86,416 ($45,859)Mean years of maternal education (SD)* 16.21 (2.46) 19.24 (1.31)Language percentile scores (SD)*

Mean comprehension 25.13 (13.52) 71.49 (20.58)Mean expression 14.76 (12.06) 67.51 (23.67)

Mean cognition standard scores (SD)* 97.16 (14.93) 105.12 (8.73)Mean print-concepts knowledge (SD)* 5.68 (2.72) 10.87 (3.19)Mean letter knowledge (SD)* 6.89 (8.35) 20.83 (7.54)

Note: Language comprehension was measured using percentile scores from the Grammatic Com-pletion subscale of the Test of Language Development–3: Primary (Newcomer, & Hammill, 1997).Language expression was measured using the percentile scores from the Oral Vocabulary subscale ofthe Test of Language Development–3: Primary. Cognition was measured using standard scores (M =100, SD = 15) from the matrices subscale of the Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test (Kaufman &Kaufman, 1990). Print-concepts knowledge was measured using raw scores from the Preschool Wordand Print Awareness scale (Justice & Ezell, 2000; Justice, Bowles, & Skibbe, 2006), and letter knowl-edge was measured using raw scores from the uppercase alphabet knowledge subtest of the Phonologi-cal Awareness Literacy Screening: PreK (Invernizzi, Sullivan, & Meier, 2001). SLI = specific languageimpairment; TL = typical language skills.

*p < .01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

sessments administered. Of relevance to the current study were measures collectedfrom mothers of their reading beliefs and home literacy practices, and measurescollected from children of their letter knowledge and their print-concept knowl-edge.

Maternal reading beliefs. Mothers were asked to record their beliefs aboutthe importance of literacy as measured by the PRBI (DeBaryshe & Binder, 1994).Mothers were asked to indicate whether they strongly agreed, agreed, disagreed, orstrongly disagreed with each of the 42 items provided on the questionnaire.Mothers’ responses to this questionnaire were summed into seven subscales basedon factor analysis conducted by the scale author: 9 items for teaching efficacy (e.g.,“As a parent, I play an important role in my child’s development”), 11 items forpositive affect (e.g., “I find it boring or difficult to read to my child”), 8 items forverbal participation (e.g., “When we read, I want my child to help me tell thestory”), 4 items for reading instruction (e.g., “My child is too young to learn aboutreading”), 5 items for knowledge base (e.g., “Reading helps children learn aboutthings they never see in real life”), 4 items for resources (e.g., “I don’t teach mychild to read because there is no room and no quiet place in the house”), and 2items for environmental input (e.g., “Children inherit their language ability fromtheir parents, it’s in their genes”). Several items (e.g., “I would like to help mychild learn, but I don’t know how”) were reverse scored before they were summed,and one item (i.e., “When we read I try to sound excited so my child stays inter-ested”) was considered to be part of two separate subscales. The seven subscaleswere then combined to create a score representing mothers’overall literacy beliefs.Scores on this measure could range from 43 to 176; higher scores represented morepositive attitudes about literacy. Test–retest reliability for the PRBI after a 2-weekperiod of time was .79 (DeBaryshe & Binder, 1994).

Home literacy practices. Mothers also completed a home literacy practicesinventory examining frequency of specific activities that was designed by Bennettet al. (2002). Mothers were asked to respond to nine statements using the followingscale: 1 (hardly ever), 2 (once to twice a month), 3 (once to twice a week), 4 (onceper day), and 5 (two or more times per day). Items included, for instance, “How of-ten do you or another family member read to you child?,” “How often do you or an-other family member sing or recite rhymes to your child?,” and “How often do youor another family member tell stories with your child?” Using our sample, reliabil-ity analyses suggested that one item (i.e., “How often do you or another familymember play games with your child?”) did not form a coherent scale with the re-maining eight items. Thus, the literacy practices score used in the current studyconsisted of the sum of the remaining eight items to create a total literacy practicesscore. The potential range of scores was 8 to 40; higher scores indicated more re-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

ported literacy practices. Information about reliability from the scale creators wasunavailable, although reliability of the revised 8-item scale was .73 for our sample.

Letter knowledge. Children were administered an individual assessment ofletter knowledge using the uppercase alphabet knowledge subtest of the Phonolog-ical Awareness Literacy Screening: PreK (Invernizzi, Sullivan, & Meier, 2001).This subtest examines children’s ability to name all 26 uppercase alphabet letters,which are presented randomly on one sheet of paper. The possible number ofpoints is 26; children received a score ranging from 0 to 26.

Print-concept knowledge. The Preschool Word and Print Awareness scale(Justice & Ezell, 2000; Justice et al., 2006) is a 12-item measure of children’sprint-concept knowledge that is individually administered using the commercialstorybook Nine Ducks Nine (Hayes, 1990). A series of print-related tasks is em-bedded into a storybook-reading interaction, including such questions as “Showme the front of the book,” “Show me where one of the ducks is talking,” “Where doI begin to read?,” and “Then which way do I read?” Scores on the print-conceptknowledge measure ranged from 0 to 18. An item response theory analysis con-ducted by Justice et al. (2006) confirmed that this measure was valid and could beused as part of clinical assessment. Reliability on this measure was .76.

RESULTS

Our first aim was to describe mothers’ literacy beliefs and practices and to deter-mine whether these differed for mothers of children with SLI as compared tomothers of children with TL. Overall, average scores on the PRBI and home liter-acy practices were generally high, although PRBI scores ranged from 129.00 to169.00 (M = 149.95, SD = 8.62) and home literacy practices scores ranged from 16to 39 (M = 27.28, SD = 4.23). Mothers’ literacy beliefs and practices were signifi-cantly and positively correlated (r = .49, p < .001). Correlations between mothers’literacy beliefs and practices for the two groups of families can be found in Table 2.

Mothers of children with SLI reported less positive literacy beliefs (M = 145.20;SD = 6.60) compared to mothers of children with TL (M = 155.08; SD = 7.56), asindicated by a comparison of sum scores of the PRBI using an independent sam-ples t test, t(106) = 7.24, p < .001. The magnitude of this effect was consistent witha very large effect size (d = 1.40; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 0.97, 1.81). Notethat the lower and upper end values of the 95% CIs were consistent with very largeeffects; consequently, we could be confident that the effect size contrast for thiscomparison was sizeable in magnitude. Similarly, mothers of children with SLI re-ported engaging in significantly fewer home literacy activities (M = 25.69; SD =4.50) than mothers of children with TL (M = 29.00; SD = 3.15), t(106) = 4.40, p <


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

.001. Based on the CIs, the magnitude of this effect was at least medium and morelikely to be large in size (d = 0.85; 95% CI = 0.45, 1.23).

To address the first research aim, two regression analyses were conducted in or-der to investigate whether mean scores on the PRBI and home literacy practiceswere significantly different for parents of children with SLI as compared to parentsof children with TL; given that maternal education differed for the two groups ofchildren, as reported earlier, maternal education was included as a covariate in bothmodels. In the first model, SLI status, t(105) = –2.58, p = .01, but not maternal edu-cation, t(105) = 1.51, p = .13, predicted literacy practices within the home. Simi-larly, for the second model, SLI status, t(105) = –5.64, p < .001, but not maternaleducation, t(105) = 0.17, p = .87, predicted mothers’ beliefs about literacy (see Ta-ble 3). Thus, even when accounting for differences in maternal education betweenthe two groups, our findings suggested that presence of SLI was associated withdifferences in maternal literacy beliefs and home literacy practices.

To further investigate differences in maternal literacy beliefs, which were asso-ciated with very large effect size contrasts, we studied whether specific aspects ofmothers’ literacy beliefs differed by group using the subscales of the PRBI. Differ-ences were tested using independent t tests. Maternal education was not includedas a covariate in this instance given that it did not predict mothers’ reported literacybeliefs overall. For the subscale analysis of the PRBI, Levene’s test supported theassumption of homogeneity of variance for all subscales except positive affect,F(1, 108) = 4.73, p = .03. For the positive affect subscale, the t-test value reporteddid not assume equal variances for the two groups. Mothers of children with SLIreported less positive affect when reading with their children as compared to moth-ers of children with TL, t(106) = 12.58, p < .001 (d = 2.42; 95% CI = 1.91, 2.90);effect size estimates were consistent with large effects. Mothers of children with


TABLE 2Relations Among Mothers’ Literacy Beliefs and Practices and Children’s

Print-Related Knowledge for the Two Groups of Families

Variable Literacy Beliefs Literacy Practices Print-Concepts Knowledge

Literacy practicesSLITL

.36*

.36*——

Print-concepts knowledgeSLITL

.09–.03

.15

.23——

Letter knowledgeSLITL

.05–.06

.06

.27.23.44*

Note: SLI = specific language impairment; TL = typical language skills.*p < .01.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

SLI also reported less verbal participation than mothers of children with TL, t(106)= 3.81, p < .001 (d = 0.74; 95% CI = 0.34, 1.12), with effect size estimates consis-tent with large effects. No differences were found in parents’view of their teachingefficacy, t(106) = 1.30, p = .20 (d = 0.25; 95% CI = –0.13, 0.63); in expectationsduring reading instruction, t(106) = 1.07, p = .29 (d = 0.20; 95% CI = –0.18, 0.58);in perceptions of the resources that mothers had available for reading, t(106) =0.80, p = .42 (d = 0.15; 95% CI = –0.23, 0.53); in mothers’ feelings about how envi-ronmental input affected children’s interest in literacy, t(106) = –0.09, p = .93 (d =–0.02; 95% CI = –0.40, 0.36); or in mothers’ beliefs of the role of reading in pro-moting literacy knowledge, t(106) = 1.76, p = .08 (d = 0.34; 95% CI = –0.04, 0.72;see Table 3).

As part of our second research aim, we investigated whether mothers’ literacybeliefs and practices were associated with children’s print-related knowledge, spe-cifically their letter knowledge and their print-concept knowledge. First, analyseswere completed to confirm statistically significant differences between groups inletter and print knowledge. Children with TL knew an average of 20.83 letters (SD= 7.54), and children with SLI knew an average of 6.89 letters (SD = 8.35). Usingan independent samples t test, we observed that differences in letter knowledge be-tween the two groups of children were significant, t(105) = 9.04, p < .001 (d = 1.75;95% CI = 1.29, 2.18). In addition, children with TL had more print-concept knowl-edge (M = 10.87; SD = 3.19) than children with SLI (M = 5.68; SD = 2.72). Differ-ences in print-concept knowledge between the two groups of children were alsosignificant, t(106) = 9.12, p < .001 (d = 1.76; 95% CI = 1.30, 2.19).


TABLE 3Group Differences in Total Scores for Mothers’ Literacy Beliefs

and Practices

Parent Sample

Variable

SLI TL

M SD M SD t p

Reading beliefs 145.20 6.60 155.08 7.56 7.35 <.001Teaching efficacy 33.57 1.79 34.06 2.09 1.41 .16Positive affect 34.88 3.04 41.23 2.08 12.86a <.001Verbal participation 26.48 2.96 28.60 2.79 3.92 <.001Reading instruction 10.63 1.46 10.90 1.24 0.93 .36Resource 15.57 0.85 15.69 0.70 0.85 .40Environmental input 6.18 1.63 6.15 1.29 0.04 .97Knowledge 17.89 1.78 18.44 1.45 1.61 .11Literacy practices 25.69 4.50 29.00 3.15 4.40 <.001

Note: SLI = specific language impairment; TL = typical language skills.at values reflect values calculated when homogeneity of variance is not assumed.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

We then used a multivariate regression with letter knowledge and print-con-cept knowledge as the dependent variables and literacy beliefs and practices asthe predictor variables. In this model, the full sample was included, comprisingboth children with SLI and those with TL (see Table 4). In Model 1, mothers’literacy beliefs significantly predicted children’s letter knowledge, t(1, 104) =2.69, p = .01, and print-concept knowledge, t(1, 104) = 2.64, p = .01. In addi-tion, home literacy practices significantly predicted children’s letter knowl-edge, t(1, 104) = 2.11, p = .04, and their print-concept knowledge, t(1, 104) =2.39, p = .02.

Mothers’ education level was added as part of Model 2. In this model, mothers’literacy beliefs no longer predicted children’s print-concept knowledge, t(1, 104) =1.86, p = .07, or their letter knowledge, t(1, 104) = 1.75, p = .05. In addition, liter-acy practices did not significantly predict either children’s print-concepts knowl-edge, t(1, 104) = 1.65, p = .10, or their letter knowledge, t(1, 104) = 1.21, p = .23.This finding suggested that maternal education accounted for much of the relationbetween salient measures of the home literacy environment (maternal literacy be-liefs, home literacy practices) and children’s print-related knowledge. Mothers’level of education significantly predicted both children’s print-concept knowledge,t(1, 104) = 3.54, p < .001, and their letter knowledge, t(1, 104) = 4.60, p < .001.

To address the third research aim, we conducted subgroup analyses to focusspecifically on children with SLI, using an additional multivariate regression tostudy the contribution of home literacy practices and maternal literacy beliefs toletter knowledge and print-concept knowledge for these children exclusively (seeTable 5). Results showed that maternal report of home literacy practices did notsignificantly relate to children’s letter knowledge, t(1, 52) = 0.32, p = .75, or totheir print-concept knowledge, t(1, 52) = 0.93, p = .36. Similarly, mothers’ beliefs


TABLE 4Summary of Multivariate Analysis Predicting Children’s

Print-Related Knowledge

Letter Knowledge Print-Concept Knowledge

Model and Predictors B SEB t(1, 104) p B SEB t(1, 104) p

Model 1Maternal literacy beliefsHome literacy practices

0.350.55

.13

.262.692.11

.01

.040.130.23

.05

.102.642.39

.01

.02Model 2

Maternal educationMaternal literacy beliefsHome literacy practices

3.530.220.30

.77

.12

.25

4.601.751.21

<.001.08.23

1.020.090.15

.29

.05

.09

3.541.861.65

<.001.07.10

Note: B is the standardized regression coefficient, and SEB is the standard error of the regressioncoefficient.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

about literacy did not relate to children’s letter knowledge, t(1, 52) = 0.24, p = .82,or their print-concept knowledge, t(1, 52) = 0.33, p = .74. When maternal educa-tion was added to the model, it did not significantly predict children’s letter knowl-edge, t(1, 51) = 1.31, p = .20, or print-concept knowledge, t(1, 51) = 0.09, p = .93.This finding suggested that the measurable contributions of home literacy prac-tices and maternal literacy beliefs to children’s emergent literacy skills were sub-stantially attenuated, if not completed mitigated, for children with SLI.

DISCUSSION

The mothers of children with SLI in the present study exhibited fewer positive be-liefs about literacy and engaged in fewer literacy practices as compared to mothersof children with TL. Regarding literacy beliefs specifically, many things about thetwo groups of mothers were similar (e.g., mothers’ perceptions of their role inteaching their children, maternal perceptions about access to resources), but in twoimportant ways, the groups were different: in the affective characteristics ofshared-reading exchanges and in children’s verbal participation during these activ-ities. Additional findings of this work indicate that for the complete sample, moth-ers’ literacy practices and their beliefs were associated with children’s print-relatedknowledge, although maternal education appeared to account for much of this as-sociation. Nonetheless, for children with SLI, there was no significant contributionof maternal education, home literacy practices, and maternal literacy beliefs to theprediction of children’s print-related knowledge. We discuss these findings ingreater detail below.


TABLE 5Summary of Multivariate Analysis Predicting Children’s Print-Related

Knowledge for Children With SLI Only

Letter Knowledge Print-Concept Knowledge

Model and Predictors B SEB t(1, 103) p B SEB t(1, 103) p

Model 1Maternal literacy beliefsHome literacy practices

0.040.09

.19

.280.240.32

.82

.750.020.08

.06

.090.330.93

.74

.36Model 2

Maternal educationMaternal literacy beliefsHome literacy practices

1.230.050.03

.94

.19

.28

1.310.280.10

.20

.78

.92

0.030.020.08

.31

.06

.09

0.090.330.90

.93

.75

.37

Note: B is the standardized regression coefficient, and SEB is the standard error of the regressioncoefficient.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

As part of our first research aim, the mothers of children with SLI reported par-ticipating in fewer literacy practices with their children. This finding is consistentwith previous research that indicates that parents of children with SLI engage infewer literacy practices (Boudreau, 2005; C. A. Marvin & Wright, 1997) thanparents of children with TL. Although it is impossible to determine why these dif-ferences occur given the present methodologies, it is important to note that this as-sociation may be bidirectional in nature, supporting a transactional model of de-velopment (e.g., Sameroff, 1993; Sameroff & MacKenzie, 2003). According tothis theory, there is constant dynamic interplay between the child and his or her so-cial context. Of relevance to the current study, children with SLI may behave in amanner that influences mothers’ home literacy behaviors, which, when consideredover time, may serve to explain some of the differences in children’s literacyknowledge. Specifically, evidence suggests that children with SLI seem to demon-strate less interest in reading (Kaderavek & Sulzby, 1998) and may initiate fewerliteracy activities with their parent. Thus, it is possible that differences in amountsof literacy activities may reflect children’s differing desires to engage in theseactivities.

Moreover, it is also of note that this study found that the mothers of childrenwith SLI reported fewer positive beliefs about literacy, and that beliefs and prac-tices were significantly associated in the larger sample. Looking at specific areasof difference between the two groups of mothers, there appears to be differences inmothers’ feelings about literacy, but not their self-reported instructional techniquesor access to resources. Mothers of both groups of children viewed their role as a lit-eracy instructor similarly, and all mothers believed that they had influence overtheir children’s literacy development. Researchers who have studied mother–childinteractions in literacy contexts have found that mothers of children with SLI areable to engage their children successfully in these activities (Justice & Kaderavek,2003; Vander Woude & Barton, 2001). However, the mothers of children with SLIreported fewer positive feelings when reading books with their children, indicatingthat they did not enjoy engaging in literacy activities as much as mothers of chil-dren with TL.

These self-reports, which may help to explain why mothers of children withSLI engage in fewer literacy practices, are supported by recent research conductedby Skibbe, Moody, Justice, and McGinty (2007). These researchers observedmothers of children with SLI and mothers of children with TL during a book-read-ing interaction and found that, although mothers of children with SLI provided asimilar quality of instructional support, they provided less emotional support totheir children during the book-reading interaction. The authors noted a strong cor-relation between child behaviors (e.g., engagement during reading) and maternalbehaviors and emphasized the likely bidirectional nature of these observed charac-teristics. These conclusions coincide with research indicating that, compared to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

mothers of children with TL, mothers of children with language impairment tendto be somewhat more controlling and directive when engaging in shared bookreading with their children (Evans & Schmidt, 1991). Similar findings have pro-vided the theoretical rationale for an intervention program designed to instructmothers of children with language impairment on how to be more effective instruc-tors during book-reading sessions (Crowe et al., 2000).

Note also that the mothers of children with SLI in the present study reportedlower expectations for children’s verbal engagement during literacy activities, par-ticularly book reading. Given that book reading and other literacy activities tapinto skill sets that are often underdeveloped in children with SLI (e.g., Beitchmanet al., 1996; Redmond & Rice, 1998), it may be that these children do not have theprerequisite skills to participate in literacy activities as fully as children with TL.As one example, children with SLI may lack some of the language skills neededfor emergent storybook readings (Kaderavek & Sulzby, 2000). It is also possiblethat mothers of children with SLI are inaccurately representing their children’sverbal abilities and just have lower expectations for their children’s verbal partici-pation. However, when compared to teacher reports, mothers appear to be accuratereporters of their children’s language abilities (Boudreau, 2005), and, as such,lower scores on this subscale do not appear to reflect negative beliefs about liter-acy, but rather mothers’ accurate reflections of children’s ability to participate ver-bally in book-reading exchanges. Given the importance of active verbal participa-tion by children in storybook-reading exchanges to their language outcomesduring this activity, this finding suggests the importance of identifying strategies toeffectively promote more active participation for children with SLI.

As part of the second research aim, we found that mothers’ literacy beliefs andpractices predicted children’s print-related knowledge. This generally coincideswith previous research that indicates that what mothers do in the home relates tochildren’s overall reading success (e.g., Burns & Collins, 1987; Scarborough &Dobrich, 1994). It also replicates work by Bennett et al. (2002) that demonstratedpositive associations between a composite home literacy measure derived from thePRBI and home literacy practices questionnaire used in the present study and chil-dren’s emergent literacy skills.

It is important also to note that the associations between mothers’ literacy be-liefs and practices and children’s print-related knowledge were greatly reducedonce the level of maternal education was considered. Differences in maternal edu-cation may explain variations in children’s print-related knowledge, possibly dueto the fact that mothers with less education are less likely to engage in literacy ac-tivities with their children and may have less positive beliefs about literacy. Adams(1990) determined that children residing in low-income homes are less likely tohave opportunities to engage in literacy activities relative to children from homeswith higher overall household incomes. In a more recent study, Curenton and Jus-tice (in press) found a significant association between maternal education and ma-


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

ternal literacy beliefs when looking within a low-income rural sample of mothers.These researchers reported differences consistent with large effect sizes whencomparing the maternal literacy beliefs (based on the PRBI) for less and more edu-cated mothers. The present findings show that maternal education is a particularlyinfluential force when trying to untangle the associations among features of thehome environment and children’s literacy achievements.

Focusing exclusively on children with SLI, a potentially important finding inthis article is that mothers’ literacy practices and beliefs did not predict children’sprint-related knowledge. Put another way, we saw no significant associations be-tween home literacy environment measures and children’s emergent literacy skillswhen looking at our sample of children with SLI. This was an unexpected finding,given that studies have shown that measured environmental variables (e.g., esti-mates of home reading frequency) account for about 5% of the variance in chil-dren’s emergent literacy skills (see Scarborough & Dobrich, 1994). Nonetheless,children’s innate capabilities exert substantially greater influences on reading-re-lated achievements, as shown by a number of genetically sensitive research de-signs (see Petrill, Deater-Deckard, Schatschneider, & Davis, 2005; Petrill et al.,2007). Although the present study as well as many previous works have persua-sively shown a relation between measures of the home literacy environment andchildren’s emergent literacy outcomes for children with TL (e.g., see Petrill et al.,2005), this study demonstrates that these relations are not apparent when lookingat children with SLI. Interpretations of this finding must take into account the factthat the children with SLI are in the extreme in terms of both their language abili-ties as well as their print-related emergent literacy skills. Although studies haveshown that both genetic and environmental influences contribute to emergent liter-acy outcomes, genetic influences (i.e., heritability) are increased in magnitudeover shared environmental influences when looking at extreme cases of languageimpairment for vocabulary outcomes (DeThorne, Petrill, Hayious-Thomas, &Plomin, 2005). Thus, it is possible that presence of SLI attenuates the effects of en-vironmental influences on emergent literacy skills, with genetic influences makingincreasingly large contributions to variance in literacy outcomes over environmen-tal influences. It may be that children with SLI do not have the prerequisite lan-guage skills necessary to benefit from certain types of literacy practices within thehome and that they require more explicit (vs. implicit) instruction to develop theirliteracy skills in a timely manner (Justice, Sofka, & McGinty, 2007). This findingsuggests important directions for future research on emergent literacy develop-ment in children with SLI.

Limitations

There are several limitations that need to be considered as part of the present work.First, indicators of mothers’ literacy practices and beliefs were based on self-report


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

of the mothers. It is unclear how well such self-reports relate to actual literacypractices within the home. Mothers may have been hesitant to report any negativebeliefs that they held about literacy, given that literacy represents a socially desir-able skill set. In addition, the two groups of families differed regarding both mater-nal education and household income. Although maternal education was controlledfor as part of the analysis plan, it is possible that important factors associated withmaternal education, such as quality of home literacy experiences, were not ac-counted for in this model.

Educational Implications and Conclusions

Findings from the present work have important educational implications for chil-dren with SLI. Children with SLI do not seem to benefit from implicit exposure toliteracy in the same way as their peers with TL. For children with SLI, systemati-cally and explicitly referencing print may be necessary for them to acquire someknowledge surrounding concepts of print (Lovelace & Stewart, 2007), and this isnow a recommended strategy for educators and speech language pathologists (Jus-tice et al., 2007). For example, educators and parents are encouraged to engage inexplicit teaching activities with children, such as pointing to print and makingcomments about print.

Additionally, the measures used in the current study failed to capture the qualityof parent–child interactions surrounding literacy activities. Evidence suggests thatthe general quality of interactions between parents and children, including the de-gree to which parents encourage, structure, motivate, and support children’s learn-ing, is a strong predictor of children’s early academic skills (National Institute ofChild Health and Human Development, Early Child Care Research Network,1999, 2002; Roberts et al., 2005). In a recent study of emergent literacy skills ofAfrican American preschoolers, Roberts et al. found that the general quality of thehome environment, including maternal responsiveness and involvement with thechild, explained children’s language and emergent literacy skills above that of spe-cific home literacy practices. It is possible that for children with SLI, the relationbetween home literacy practices and emergent literacy outcomes is impacted bythe degree to which these activities are infused with quality instruction andsocioemotional support.

In conclusion, the home literacy experiences of children with SLI appear tovary from those of their peers with TL, although differences in home literacy expe-riences do not predict print-related knowledge for children with SLI. These find-ings suggest that the ways in which educators and practitioners conceptualizeemergent literacy interventions for children with SLI may need to differ in order tomeet the specialized needs of these children.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

We gratefully acknowledge the support provided by Grant DC04933 from the Nation-al Institute of Deafness and Other Communication Disorders and Grant HD43204from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. We wouldlike to thank all of the families and children who participated in these two studies.

REFERENCES

Abt Associates. (1991). Even Start in-depth study: Child’s Emergent Literacy Task administrationmanual. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.

Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Anderson-Yockel, J., & Haynes, W. O. (1994). Joint book-reading strategies in working-class African

American and White mother-toddler dyads. Journal of Speech and Hearing Research, 37, 583–593.Aram, D., & Levin, I. (2002). Mother-child joint writing and storybook reading: Relations with literacy

among low SES kindergarteners. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 48, 202–224.Baker, L., & Scher, D. (2002). Beginning readers’ motivation for reading in relation to parental beliefs

and home reading experiences. Reading Psychology, 23, 239–269.Beitchman, J., Brownlie, E., Inglis, A., Wild, J., Ferguson, B., Schachter, D., et al. (1996). Seven-year

follow-up of speech/language impaired and control children: Psychiatric outcome. Journal of ChildPsychology and Psychiatry, 37, 961–970.

Benasich, A. A., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (1996). Maternal attitudes and knowledge of child-rearing: Asso-ciations with family and child outcomes. Child Development, 67, 1186–1205.

Bennett, K. K., Weigel, D. J., & Martin, S. S. (2002). Children’s acquisition of early literacy skills: Ex-amining family contributions. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 17, 295–317.

Bishop, D. V. M., & Adams, C. (1990). A prospective of the relationship between specific language im-pairment, phonological disorders, and reading retardation. Journal of Child Psychology & Psychia-try, 31, 1027–1050.

Boudreau, D. (2005). Use of a parent questionnaire in emergent and early literacy assessment of pre-school children. Language, Speech, and Hearing in Schools, 36, 33–47.

Boudreau, D. M., & Hedberg, N. L. (1999). A comparison of early literacy skills in children with spe-cific language impairment and their typically developing peers. American Journal of Speech-Lan-guage Pathology, 8, 249–260.

Brandt, D. (2001). Literacy in American lives. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Burchinal, M. R., Peisner-Feinberg, E., Pianta, R., & Howes, C. (2002). Development of academic

skills from preschool through second grade: Family and classroom predictors of developmental tra-jectories. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 415–436.

Burns, J. M., & Collins, M. D. (1987). Parents’perceptions of factors affecting the reading developmentof intellectually superior accelerated readers and intellectually superior nonreaders. Reading Re-search and Instruction, 26, 239–246.

Bus, A. G., van IJzendoorn, M. H., & Pellegrini, A. D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success inlearning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educa-tional Research, 65, 1–21.

Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2002). A longitudinal investigation of readingoutcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Re-search, 45, 1142–1157.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Catts, H., & Kahmi, A. (2005). (Eds.). The connections between language and reading disabilities.Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Crowe, L. (2000). Reading behaviors of mothers and their children with language impairment duringrepeated storybook reading. Journal of Communication Disorders, 33, 503–524.

Crowe, L., Norris, J., & Hoffman, P. (2000). Facilitating storybook interactions between mothers andtheir preschoolers with language impairment. Communication Disorders Quarterly, 21, 131–146.

Curenton, S., & Justice, L. M. (in press). Appalachian children’s preliteracy skills: Influence of moth-ers’ education and beliefs about shared reading interactions. Early Education and Development.

DeBaryshe, B. D. (1995). Maternal belief systems: Linchpins in the home reading process. Journal ofApplied Developmental Psychology, 16, 1–20.

DeBaryshe, B. D., & Binder, J. C. (1994). Development of an instrument for measuring parental beliefsabout reading aloud to young children. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 78, 1301–1311.

DeLoache, J. S., & DeMendoza, O. A. (1987). Joint picturebook interactions of mothers and 1-year-oldchildren. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 111–123.

DeThorne, L. S., Petrill, S. A., Hayious-Thomas, M., & Plomin, R. (2005). Low expressive vocabulary:Higher heritability as a function of more severe cases. Journal of Speech, Language, and HearingResearch, 48, 792–804.

Evans, M. A., & Schmidt, F. (1991). Repeated maternal book reading with two children: Language-nor-mal and language-impaired. First Language, 11, 269–287.

Evans, M. A., Shaw, D., & Bell, M. (2000). Home literacy activities and their influence on early literacyskills. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52, 65–75.

Fitzgerald, J., Spiegel, D. L., & Cunningham, J. W. (1991). The relationship between parental literacylevel and perceptions of emergent literacy. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 191–213.

Hayes, S. (1990). Nine ducks nine. Cambridge, MA: Candlewick Press.Invernizzi, M., Sullivan, A., & Meier, J. (2001). Phonological awareness literacy-pre-kindergarten.

Charlottesville, VA: Curry School of Education.Justice, L., Bowles, R., & Skibbe, L. (2006). Measuring preschool attainment of print-concept knowl-

edge: A study of typical and at-risk 3- to 5-year-old children. Language, Speech, and Hearing Ser-vices in Schools, 37, 224–235.

Justice, L. M., & Ezell, H. K. (2000). Enhancing children’s print and word awareness throughhome-based parent intervention. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 9, 257–269.

Justice, L. M., & Kaderavek, J. (2003). Topic control during shared storybook reading: Mothers andtheir children with mild to moderate language impairment. Topics in Early Childhood Special Edu-cation, 23, 137–150.

Justice, L. M., Sofka, A., & McGinty, A. S. (2007). Targets, techniques, and treatment contexts in emer-gent literacy intervention. Seminars in Speech and Hearing, 28, 14–24.

Kaderavek, J., & Sulzby, E. (1998). Parent-child joint book reading: An observational protocol foryoung children. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 7, 33–47.

Kaderavek, J. N., & Sulzby, E. (2000). Narrative production by children with and without specific lan-guage impairment: Oral narratives and emergent readings. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hear-ing Research, 43, 34–49.

Kaufman, A. S., & Kaufman, N. L. (1990). Kaufman Brief Intelligence Test. Circle Pines, MN: Ameri-can Guidance Service.

La Paro, K. M., Justice, L. M., Skibbe, L. E., & Pianta, R. C. (2004). Relations between maternal, child,and demographic factors and the persistence of preschool language impairment. American Journalof Speech Language Pathology, 13, 291–303.

Leseman, P. P. M., & de Jong, P. F. (1998). Home literacy: Opportunity, instruction, cooperation, and so-cial-emotional quality predicting early reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 294–318.

Lovelace, S., & Stewart, S. R. (2007). Increasing print awareness in preschoolers with language impairmentusing non-evocative print referencing. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 16–30.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Lynch, J., Anderson, J., Anderson, A., & Shapiro, J. (2006). Parents’ beliefs about young children’s lit-eracy development and parents’ literacy behaviors. Reading Psychology, 27, 1–20.

Maclean, M., Bryant, P., & Bradley, L. (1987). Rhymes, nursery rhymes, and reading in early child-hood. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 33, 255–281.

Martin, L. E. (1998). Early book reading: How mothers deviate from printed text for young children.Reading Research and Instruction, 37, 137–160.

Marvin, C. A., & Wright, D. (1997). Literacy socialization in the home of preschool children. Lan-guage, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 28, 154–163.

Marvin, M., & Mirenda, P. (1993). Home literacy experiences of preschoolers enrolled in Head Startand special education programs. Journal of Early Intervention, 17, 351–367.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Early Child Care Research Network.(1999). Chronicity of maternal depressive symptoms, maternal sensitivity, and child functioning at36 months. Developmental Psychology, 35, 1399–1413.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Early Child Care Research Network.(2002). Early child care and children’s development prior to school entry: Results from the NICHDStudy of Early Child Care. American Educational Research Journal, 39, 133–164.

Newcomer, P., & Hammill, D. (1997). Test of Language Development-3 Primary. Austin, TX:PRO-ED.

Petrill, S. A., Deater-Deckard, K., Schatschneider, C., & Davis, C. (2005). Measured environmental in-fluences in early reading: Evidence from an adoption study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 9,237–259.

Petrill, S. A., Deater-Deckard, K., Thompson, L. A., Schatschneider, C., DeThorne, L. S., & Van-denbergh, D. J. (2007). Longitudinal genetic analysis of early reading: The Western Reserve ReadingProject. Reading and Writing, 20, 127–146.

Redmond, S. M., & Rice, M. L. (1998). The socioemotional behaviors of children with SLI: Social ad-aptation or social deviance? Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 41, 688–700.

Richgels, D. J. (2001). Invented spelling, phonemic awareness, and reading and writing instruction. InS. B. Neuman & D. Dickinson (Eds.), Handbook of early literacy research (Vol. 1, pp. 142–155).New York: Guilford Press.

Roberts, J. E., & Burchinal, M. R. (2001). The complex interplay between biology and environment:Otitis media and mediating effects on early literacy development. In S. B. Newman & D. K.Dickinson (Eds.). Handbook of early literacy research (pp. 232–241). New York: Guilford Press.

Roberts, J., Jurgens, J., & Burchinal, M. (2005). The role of home literacy practices in preschool chil-dren’s language and emergent literacy skills. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research,48, 345–359.

Sameroff, A. (1993). Systems, development, and early intervention. Monographs of the Society for Re-search in Child Development, 57, 154–163.

Sameroff, A. J., & MacKenzie, M. J. (2003). Research strategies for capturing transactional models ofdevelopment: The limits of the possible. Development and Psychopathology, 15, 613–640.

Scarborough, H. S. (1990). Very early language deficits in dyslexic children. Child Development, 61,1728–1743.

Scarborough, H. S. (1991). Very early language deficits in dyslexic children. Annual Progress in ChildPsychiatry & Child Development, 204–227.

Scarborough, H. S., & Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. DevelopmentalReview, 14, 245–302.

Sénéchal, M. (2006). Testing the home literacy model: Parent involvement in kindergarten is differen-tially related to grade 4 reading comprehension, fluency, and reading for pleasure. Scientific Studiesof Reading, 10, 59–87.

Sénéchal, M., LeFevre, J., Thomas, E. M., & Daley, K. E. (1998). Differential effects of home literacy ex-periences on the development of oral and written language. Reading Research Quarterly, 33, 96–116.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Serpell, R., Sonnenschein, S., Baker, L., & Ganapathy, H. (2002). Intimate culture of families in theearly socialization of literacy. Journal of Family Psychology, 16, 391–405.

Shaywitz, S. E., & Shaywitz, B. A. (2003). Dyslexia (specific reading disability). Pediatrics in Review,24, 147–153.

Shaywitz, S. E., Shaywitz, B. A., Pugh, K. R., Fulbright, R. K., Constable, R. T., Mencl, W. E., et al.(1998). Functional disruption in the organization of the brain for reading in dyslexia. Proceedings ofthe National Academy of Sciences, 99, 2636–2641.

Skibbe, L. E., Moody, A. J., Justice, L. M., & McGinty, A. S. (2007). Socio-emotional climate of story-book reading interactions for mothers and preschoolers with language impairment. Manuscript sub-mitted for publication.

Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (Eds.). (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children.Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Snowling, M. J., Bishop, D. V., & Stothard, S. E. (2000). Is preschool language impairment a risk factorfor dyslexia in adolescence? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 41, 587–600.

Snowling, M. J., Gallagher, A., & Frith, U. (2003). Family risk of dyslexia is continuous: Individual dif-ferences in the precursors of reading skill. Child Development, 74, 358–373.

Sonnenschein, S., & Munsterman, K. (2002). The influence of home-based reading interactions on5-year-olds’ reading motivations and early literacy development. Early Childhood Research Quar-terly, 17, 318–337.

Stanovich, K. E. (1988). Explaining the differences between the dyslexic and the garden-variety poorreader: The phonological-core variable difference modes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21,590–612.

Stothard, S. E., Snowling, M. J., Bishop, D. V. M., Chipchase, B. B., & Kaplan, C. A. (1998). Lan-guage-impaired preschoolers: A follow-up into adolescence. Journal of Speech, Language, andHearing Research, 41, 407–418.

Tannock, R., & Schachar, R. (1996). Executive dysfunction as an underlying mechanism of behaviorand language problems in attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. In J. Beitchman, N. Cohen, M.Konstantareas, & R. Tannock (Eds.), Language, learning and behavior disorders (pp. 128–155).Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Tomblin, J. B., Records, N. L., & Zhang, X. (1996). A system for the diagnosis of specific language im-pairment in kindergarten children. Journal of Speech & Hearing Research, 39, 1284–1294.

Tomblin, J. B., Zhang, X., Buckwalter, P., & Catts, H. (2000). The association of reading disability, be-havioral disorders, and language impairment among second-grade children. Journal of Child Psy-chology and Psychiatry, 41, 473–482.

Vander Woude, J., & Barton, E. (2001). Specialized corrective repair sequences: Shared book readingwith children with histories of specific language impairment. Discourse Processes, 32, 1–27.

Vellutino, F. R., Fletcher, J. M., Snowling, M. J., & Scanlon, D. M. (2004). Specific reading disability(dyslexia): What have we learned in the past four decades? Journal of Child Psychology and Psychi-atry, 45, 2–40.

Weigel, D. J., Martin, S. S., & Bennett, K. K. (2005). Ecological influences of the home and child-carecenter on preschool-age children’s literacy development. Reading Research Quarterly, 40, 204–233.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

17:

09 0

9 O

ctob

er 2

014

Documents

Relations Among Maternal Literacy Beliefs, Home Literacy Practices, and the Emergent Literacy Skills of Preschoolers With Specific Language Impairment