Cited by 152Language Development and DisordersChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentSecond Language Acquisition and Learning

Measuring Growth in Bilingual and Monolingual Children’s English Productive Vocabulary Development: The Utility of Combining Parent and Teacher Report

Open access
Vagh, Shaher Banu, Pan, Barbara Alexander, Mancilla-Martinez, Jeannette·2009·Child Development

Abstract

This longitudinal study examined growth in the English productive vocabularies of bilingual and monolingual children between ages 24 and 36 months and explored the utility and validity of supplementing parent reports with teacher reports to improve the estimation of children’s vocabulary. Low-income, English-speaking and English/Spanish-speaking parents and Early Head Start and Head Start program teachers completed the MacArthur–Bates Communicative Development Inventory, Words and Sentences for 85 children. Results indicate faster growth rates for monolingual than for bilingual children and larger vocabularies for bilingual children who spoke mostly English than mostly Spanish at home. Parent–teacher composite reports, like parent reports, significantly related to children’s directly assessed productive vocabulary at ages 30 and 36 months, but parent reports fit the model better. Implications for vocabulary assessment are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2009.01350.x

Cites

1 of 1 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 Distant bilingual group (Polish-Dutch, Turkish-Dutch, Moroccan-Dutch) scored, on average, within the normal range of monolingual variation.

    “The Distant bilingual group (Polish-Dutch, Turkish-Dutch, Moroccan-Dutch) scored, on average, within the normal range of monolingual variation, similar to what has been found in other studies that compared the scores of bilinguals to monolingual norms (Hammer et al., 2014;Pearson et al., 1993;Vagh et al., 2009).”

    From Cross-language distance influences receptive vocabulary outcomes of bilingual children (2020) · cites this paper as Vagh et al., 2009

    The paper compares Spanish–English bilingual children with monolingual children, and Appendix B reports bilingual mean standardized vocabulary scores of 89.9 and 85.4. It does not study the Polish–Dutch, Turkish–Dutch, or Moroccan–Dutch group, and it does not establish that bilingual averages generally fall within normal monolingual variation. Its Discussion instead describes an English-vocabulary lag in its sample. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 15

  1. August, D., & Shanahan, T. (Eds.). (2006). Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report of the National Literacy Panel on Language-Minority Children and Youth. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  2. Baker, S. K., Simmons, D. C., & Kame ´enui, E. J. (1998). Vocabulary acquisition: Research bases. In D. C. Simmons & E. J. Kame ´enui (Eds.), What reading research tells us about children with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics (pp. 183-217). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  3. De Houwer, A., Bornstein, M. H., & Leach, D. B. (2005). Assessing early communicative ability: A cross-reporter cumulative score for the MacArthur CDI. Journal of Child Language, 32, 735-758.
  4. Dickinson, D. K., & Tabors, P. O. (Eds.). (2001). Beginning literacy with language. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
  5. Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, L. M. (1997). Peabody Picture Vocab- ulary Test. (3rd ed.). Minneapolis, MN: Pearson Assess- ments.
  6. Fenson, L., Marchman, V. A., Thal, D. J., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., & Bates, E. (2007). MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventories: User's guide and technical manual (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
  7. Marchman, V. A., & Martinez-Sussmann, C. (2002). Con- current validity of caregiver ⁄ parent report measures of language for children who are learning both English and Spanish. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45(5), 983-997.
  8. Pan, B. A., Rowe, M. L., Spier, E., & LeMonda, C. (2004). Measuring productive vocabulary of toddlers in low-income families: Concurrent and predictive validity of three sources of data. Journal of Child Lan- guage, 31, 587-608.
  9. Patterson, J. L. (2000). Observed and reported expressive vocabulary and word combinations in bilingual tod- dlers. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 43, 121-128.
  10. Pearson, B. Z., Ferna ´ndez, S. C., & Oller, D. K. (1995). Cross-language synonyms in the lexicons of bilingual infants: One language or two? Journal of Child Language, 22, 345-368.
  11. Roberts, J. E., Burchinal, M., & Durham, M. (1999). Parents' report of vocabulary and grammatical development of African American preschoolers: Child and environmental associations. Child Development, 70(1), 92-106.
  12. Singer, J. B., & Willett, J. B. (2003). Applied longitudinal data analysis: modeling change and event occurrence. New York: Oxford University Press.
  13. Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S., & Griffin, P. (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
  14. Sua ´rez-Orozco, M. M., & Pa ´ez, M. M. (2002). Latinos: Remaking America. Berkeley: University of California Press.
  15. Woodcock, R. W. (1995). Woodcock Language Proficiency Battery. (Rev. ed.). Itasca, IL: Riverside.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Vagh, S. B., Pan, B. A., & Mancilla-Martinez, J.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Harvard Graduate School of Education
Corresponding author
Vagh, Shaher Banu
Venue
Child Development
Published
2009-09-01
Volume
80
Issue
5
Pages
1545-1563
ISSN
  • 0009-3920 (ISSN-L)
  • 1467-8624
OpenAlex
W2111615025
Cited by
152
References
1
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 7
FWCI
8.73
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Child Development (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Harvard Graduate School of Education
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Language Development and Disorders
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Child and Animal Learning Development
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Second Language Acquisition and Learning
Keywords
vocabulary development, bilingual children, monolingual children, Spanish-English bilingualism, parent report, teacher reports, MacArthur-Bates Communicative Development Inventory, Early Head Start, Head Start, low-income children, home language use
MeSH terms
Child, Preschool, Faculty, Female, Humans, Infant, Language Development, Language Tests, Longitudinal Studies, Male, Parents, Socioeconomic Factors, Verbal Behavior, Vocabulary, Reproducibility of Results, Multilingualism

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