Or try downloading the content offline
The aim of the study was to examine which predictor variables are related to literacy skills among monolingual Swedish (n = 269) and bilingual Finnish–Swedish (n = 229) children at the first grade in the Swedish-speaking schools in Finland. The participants were assessed in phonological awareness, letter knowledge, rapid automatized naming (RAN), word recognition, reading fluency, and spelling. The results showed that RAN was the most significant predictor of reading and spelling skills in both language groups, and monolingual children performed significantly better in RAN. Moreover, letter knowledge predicted reading and spelling skills in both groups. However, no significant differences between language groups in reading and spelling skills were observed. The results emphasize the importance of interpreting the pre-literacy screening, especially with bilingual children.
Descriptive estimates, the ANOVA results and the effect sizes of the outcome variables in language groups at the end of Grade 1.
Note: aStatistical significance corrected for Type I error with Holm-Bonferroni correction. All comparisons N.S. after correction.
Group test (G) and Individual test (I).
Descriptive estimates, the ANOVA results and the effect sizes of the predictive variables and word recognition task in language groups.
Note: aStatistical significance corrected for Type I error with Holm-Bonferroni correction.
b Welch t test. ** p < .01. *** p < .001.
cMeasured at the end of Grade 1 concurrently with outcome measures.
dSelective measure ≤16.
Group test (G) and Individual test (I)
Pearson correlations of the predictive and outcome variables in language groups.
Note: Upper triangle Monolingual (n = 256–266), lower triangle Bilingual (n = 212–227); * p < .05, ** p < .01, *** p < .001
Comparison of the measurement (M1-PM3) and structural (M4 and M5) invariance models.
Note: a Khii square difference was counted according to Satorra & Bentler (2001).
b Goodness of fit indexes: Comparative Fit Index (CFI); >.90 acceptable fit, >.95 good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999), Tucker-Lewis index (TLI); TLI>.95 good fit (Hu & Bentler, 1999), root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA); <.06 good fit; < .08 reasonable fit, >.1 poor fit (Lubke & Muthen, 2004), standardized root mean square residual (SRMR); <.08 excellent fit, >.1 upper limit (Hu & Bentler, 1999).