Cited by 99Language Development and DisordersMultilingual Education and PolicyEFL/ESL Teaching and Learning

The complex relationship between bilingual home language input and kindergarten children’s Spanish and English oral proficiencies.

Open access
Cha, Kijoo, Goldenberg, Claude·2015·Journal of Educational Psychology

Abstract

This study examined how emergent bilingual children’s English and Spanish proficiencies moderated the relationships between Spanish and English input at home (bilingual home language input [BHLI]) and children’s oral language skills in each language. The sample comprised over 1,400 Spanish-dominant kindergartners in California and Texas. BHLI was estimated by parental report of what language adults (mother, father, and other adults) and peers (older and younger siblings and friends) usually speak to the child at home and the language in which the child watches TV programs. Spanish and English oral proficiencies were measured by the Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery-Revised. Although a “time-on-task” model suggests straightforward linear associations between language use at home and oral skills within the same language, we found far more complex cross-linguistic relationships even when controlling for school-level random effects and individual-level confounds: (a) children’s proficiency in a language (English or Spanish) moderates the relationship between BHLI and proficiency in the other language and (b) BHLI moderates the relationship between children’s Spanish and English oral proficiencies. The results suggest that among this population of children, bilingual home language environments that maintain high levels of Spanish use are associated with additive bilingualism whereas bilingual home language environments with high levels of English use are associated with subtra…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/edu0000030

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The observed significant antagonistic effect of high use of Dutch at home on the relation between Turkish and Dutch outcomes in PSG3 children replicates the inverse positive moderator effect found in previous studies of high L1 use on the relation between L1 and L2 vocabulary.

    “The observed significant antagonistic effect of high use of Dutch at home on the relation between Turkish and Dutch outcomes in PSG3 children replicates the (inverse) positive moderator effect found in previous studies of high L1 use on the relation between L1 and L2 vocabulary (Cha & Goldenberg, 2015; Marchman et al., 2010; Prevoo et al., 2015).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cha, K., & Goldenberg, C.
Venue
Journal of Educational Psychology
Published
2015-11
Volume
107
Issue
4
Pages
935-953
ISSN
  • 0022-0663 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2176
OpenAlex
W2315434161
Cited by
99
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 7 · 2022: 38 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 4 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
9.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
Journal of Educational Psychology (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development
  • Institute of Education Sciences (P01 HD39521)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Linguistics and Language › Multilingual Education and Policy
  • Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › Language and Linguistics › EFL/ESL Teaching and Learning
Keywords
emergent bilingualism, kindergarten children, English oral proficiency, additive bilingualism, subtractive bilingualism, home language environment

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review