Shelley I Gray1, Roy Levy1, Mary Alt2, Tiffany P Hogan3, Nelson Cowan4. 1. Arizona State University, Tempe. 2. The University of Arizona, Tucson. 3. MGH Institute of Health Professions, Boston, MA. 4. University of Missouri, Columbia.
Abstract
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to use an established model of working memory in children to predict an established model of word learning to determine whether working memory explained word learning variance over and above the contributions of expressive vocabulary and nonverbal IQ. METHOD: One hundred sixty-seven English-speaking second graders (7- to 8-year-olds) with typical development from two states participated. They completed a comprehensive battery of working memory assessments and six word learning tasks that assessed the creation, storage, retrieval, and production of phonological and semantic representations of novel nouns and verbs and the ability to link those representations. RESULTS: A structural equation model with expressive vocabulary, nonverbal IQ, and three working memory factors predicting two word learning factors fit the data well. When working memory factors were entered as predictors after expressive vocabulary and nonverbal IQ, they explained 45% of the variance in the phonological word learning factor and 17% of the variance in the semantic word learning factor. Thus, working memory explained a significant amount of word learning variance over and above expressive vocabulary and nonverbal IQ. CONCLUSION: Results show that working memory is a significant predictor of dynamic word learning over and above the contributions of expressive vocabulary and nonverbal IQ, suggesting that a comprehensive working memory assessment has the potential to identify sources of word learning difficulties and to tailor word learning interventions to a child's working memory strengths and weaknesses. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19125911.
PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to use an established model of working memory in children to predict an established model of word learning to determine whether working memory explained word learning variance over and above the contributions of expressive vocabulary and nonverbal IQ. METHOD: One hundred sixty-seven English-speaking second graders (7- to 8-year-olds) with typical development from two states participated. They completed a comprehensive battery of working memory assessments and six word learning tasks that assessed the creation, storage, retrieval, and production of phonological and semantic representations of novel nouns and verbs and the ability to link those representations. RESULTS: A structural equation model with expressive vocabulary, nonverbal IQ, and three working memory factors predicting two word learning factors fit the data well. When working memory factors were entered as predictors after expressive vocabulary and nonverbal IQ, they explained 45% of the variance in the phonological word learning factor and 17% of the variance in the semantic word learning factor. Thus, working memory explained a significant amount of word learning variance over and above expressive vocabulary and nonverbal IQ. CONCLUSION: Results show that working memory is a significant predictor of dynamic word learning over and above the contributions of expressive vocabulary and nonverbal IQ, suggesting that a comprehensive working memory assessment has the potential to identify sources of word learning difficulties and to tailor word learning interventions to a child's working memory strengths and weaknesses. SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.19125911.
Authors: Leenke van Haaften; Sanne Diepeveen; Lenie van den Engel-Hoek; Marianne Jonker; Bert de Swart; Ben Maassen Journal: J Speech Lang Hear Res Date: 2019-06-27 Impact factor: 2.297