Journal Of Psychoeducational Assessment Volume 26 Issue 2 2007 [doi 10.1177_0734282908314105] Harper, S. N.; Pelletier, J. P. -- Gender And Language Issues In Assessing Early Literacy- Group Differe.pdf

Gender and Language Issues in Assessing Early Literacy

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment Volume 26 Number 2 June 2008 185-194 © 2008 Sage Publications 10.1177/0734282908314105 http://jpa.sagepub.com hosted at http://online.sagepub.com

Group Differences in Children’s Performance on the Test of Early Reading Ability Sarah N. Harper Janette P. Pelletier University of Toronto

The study investigated gender and language group differences in children’s performance on two versions of the Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA-2 and TERA-3). Two groups of children consisting of girls and boys and English first language (L1) and English language learners (ELL) participated in the study. Children in Group 1 completed the TERA-2, in which standard procedures involve obtaining a total score of children’s early reading ability. Alternatively, children in Group 2 were administered the TERA-3, which yields measures of children’s ability on three individual subtests (alphabet, conventions, and meaning). Results showed that gender and language group differences on the TERA-2 were not evident. However, L1 children outperformed ELL children on the meaning subtest of the TERA-3, while showing no differences on either alphabet or conventions. The findings speak to the importance of measuring individual components of early reading to assess children’s emergent literacy. Keywords:

emergent literacy; early reading; English language learners; gender; assessment

R

esearch and practice commonly involve the use of standardized tests to obtain measures of children’s early literacy development. The Test of Early Reading Ability (TERA; Reid, Hresko & Hammill, 1981) is a widely used measure of emerging literacy and is frequently implemented in research that examines developmental differences in children’s English reading abilities (Haney & Hill, 2004; Kuby & Aldridge, 1997; Lynch, 2002; Sacks & Mergendoller, 1997). The TERA serves a variety of purposes; namely, to measure children’s reading development, to identify special needs, to act as a measurement tool in research, and to help improve reading instruction (Reid et al., 1981). Studies involving ethnically diverse samples (Hammer, Miccio & Wagstaff, 2003; Lynch, 2003), children from various socioeconomic backgrounds (Clark & Kragler, 2005; Tracey & Young, 2006) and samples that include children with developmental disabilities (Brown, 1997; Reid & Hresko, 1980) have employed the TERA. Authors’ Note: Funding for this research was provided by grants from the Ontario Ministry of Education and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (Grant File 410-2002-1625), awarded to Janette Pelletier. Correspondence should be addressed to Sarah N. Harper, MA, Doctoral Candidate, Department of Human Development and Applied Psychology, Ontario Institute for Studies in Education, University of Toronto; [email protected]. 185

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 5, 2015

186 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

The TERA has been extensively revised since its first edition in 1981. Revisions of the TERA-2 (Reid, Hresko, & Hammill, 1989) included dividing test items into three subtests using factor analysis. The alphabet subtest measures children’s knowledge of the alphabet, including letter recognition, names, and sounds, as well as syllables. The second subtest measures children’s understanding of the conventions of print, including spelling, punctuation, and capitalization, and children’s familiarity with books and other printed materials. The third subtest evaluates children’s ability to infer meaning from printed letters, words, sentences, and paragraphs. Individually administered subtests produce measures of children’s early literacy in specific areas and provide more precise assessments of children’s early reading ability. The authors of the TERA-3 claimed that this version of the test was “valid for a wide variety of subgroups as well as for a general population” (Reid, Hresko, & Hammill, 2001, p. xi), as the normative sample included girls and boys of varied socioeconomic and ethnic backgrounds, with and without disabilities. Although the normative sample included a diverse group of children, there are no reported findings on whether groups of children, sharing common demographic characteristics (such as gender, ethnicity, or a disability), perform similarly on any of the three subtests of the TERA-3. Specifically, it is unclear whether diverse groups of children differ on individual components of early reading (alphabet, conventions, or meaning), as measured by the TERA-3. Reid et al. (2001) report that the applicability of the TERA-3 may involve combining standard scores from each of the three subtests to produce a Reading Quotient, or composite score of children’s overall reading ability. For simplicity, the composite score is often used to evaluate children’s overall reading abilities (e.g., Register, 2004). Furthermore, in previous research that employed the TERA or the TERA-2, conclusions about children’s overall reading ability were based on one total standard score that accounted for all items on the test (Hammer et al., 2003; Reid & Hresko, 1980; Sacks & Mergendoller, 1997). If group differences exist in children’s performance on one or two (but not all) subtests of the TERA, using a total (or composite) score of children’s early reading ability may be problematic, as group differences may not be visible when scores are collapsed. Children’s early literacy development may vary according to their gender. Previous research has documented gender differences in young children’s reading development. For example, Soderman, Chhikara, Hsiu-Ching and Kuo (1999) measured the reading abilities of first-grade children and discovered that the reading scores of girls were significantly higher than those of boys. In addition, Halpern (1997) concluded that girls tend to outperform boys on tasks that rely on reading processes such as phonological and semantic skills and reading comprehension, and suggested that there may be a biological component that accounts for girls’ superiority in reading. There is also some evidence that differences in girls’ and boys’ reading achievement are most observable in young children, and are less often exhibited among older children (MacFarlane, 2001). Evidence from the TERA indicates that gender differences exist in children’s early reading development. For example, Lynch (2002) grouped TERA-2 test items according to component areas (alphabet, conventions, and meaning), and found that among elementary school children, girls had significantly higher scores on the items that measured children’s alphabet knowledge. Gambell and Hunter (1999) reported findings from the Saskatchewan

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 5, 2015

Harper, Pelletier / Assessing Early Literacy 187

Department of Education, showing that for measures of students’ ability to infer meaning from text, girls’ scores are higher than those of boys of the same age (Saskatchewan Education, Training and Employment, 1996, cited in Gambell & Hunter, 1999). These findings provide some evidence that gender differences may also exist in children’s ability to extract meaning. Reading acquisition can be particularly problematic for children who are learning to read in another language. Although components of early reading are similar for English first language children (L1) and children who are English language learners (ELL) when both languages employ the same code (e.g., alphabetic), it may be particularly difficult to teach reading to students who are not proficient in the target language (Pang & Kamil, 2004). One study that included a culturally and linguistically diverse sample of children (although all were proficient in English) showed that children’s total scores on the TERA-2 were significantly and positively related to their language scores on the Kindergarten Language Screening Test–2nd Edition (KLST-2; Gauthier & Madison, 1998). This suggests that children who are more fluent in English show increased performance in early English reading (Lynch, 2003). Research involving the TERA-2 or total scores on the TERA-3 may be unable to determine whether children’s reading performance in a particular component of early reading is related to their English language abilities. Other research has documented differences in L1 and ELL children’s reading scores on the TERA. Pelletier and Corter (2005) investigated the effects of a school readiness parent involvement program on L1 and ELL families. Preschool children’s early reading development was measured using the TERA-2, and results showed that L1 children had significantly higher scores than ELLs. However, this study did not report results for individual language groups, which may have masked underlying differences between L1 and various ELL groups. Some evidence suggests that a particular area of reading is more difficult for children learning to read in an additional language. For example, Sen and Blatchford (2001) administered the Neale Analysis of Reading Ability (NARA; Neale, 1989) and the word reading subtest of the British Ability Scales (BAS; Elliott, Murray, & Pearson, 1979) to a group of ELL kindergarten children. The study showed that compared to their scores on the reading rate, accuracy, and spelling subtests of the NARA and scores on the word reading subtest of the BAS, ELL children had much lower scores on the comprehension subtest of the NARA. It was concluded that although ELL children have adequate scores in other areas of early literacy, many ELL children are lacking an essential component of English reading—their ability to comprehend written text. Verhoeven (1990) likewise found that ELL children had lower scores on tasks that involved comprehension. During their first two years of primary school, L1 and ELL children completed three reading comprehension tasks and a measure of oral proficiency. L1 children outperformed ELL children on all comprehension tasks at both times. These findings suggest that ELL children may lag behind their L1 peers in this particular area of reading acquisition. Although it is clear that gender and language group differences exist in children’s reading abilities, it is unclear how these group differences may affect children’s performance on each subtest (alphabet, conventions, and meaning) of the TERA-3. Presently, there is no available research on how children’s performance in these subtest areas of early literacy varies as a function of their gender or language status (L1 or ELL). Based on the literature,

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 5, 2015

188 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

it was hypothesized that gender and language group differences would be observed in children’s performance on the TERA. Although the study provides evidence for a particular component of early literacy that varies across language groups, gender differences could not be confirmed.

Method Participants The study involved a total of 240 kindergarten children, 168 of whom participated in Year 1 of the study (Group 1), and 72 of whom participated the following year (Group 2). Group 1 included 89 females and 79 males, and 88 of these children were ELL, whereas the remaining children (n = 72) were L1. Group 2 consisted of 39 females and 33 males, 22 of whom were ELL and 33 of whom were L1. Among ELL children, 69 (62.7%) spoke an East Indian language in their home, 18 (16.4%) spoke an Asian language, 10 (9.1%) spoke a European language, 3 (2.7%) spoke Arabic, 8 (7.2%) spoke a language that does not fit into one of these categories, and 2 (1.8%) families did not provide their home language. Eight children from Group 1 and 17 children from Group 2 were not included in the language analyses because the language status of the child was not provided. Among both groups, children ranged in age from 45 to 72 months (M = 56.92, SD = 6.22 for Group 1; M = 55.76, SD = 6.64 for Group 2), and all were enrolled in either junior (4-year-old) or senior (5-year-old) kindergarten at the time of data collection. Results indicated that Groups 1 and 2 included approximately equal ratios of girls and boys (Group 1, 53% girls; Group 2, 54% girls; χ²(1) = .03, ns) and of L1 and ELL children (Group 1, 55% ELL; Group 2, 40% ELL, χ²(1) = 3.69, ns). There were no significant differences in terms of age, t(238) = 1.30, ns, or parents’ education, t(212) = −.29, ns. Within Group 1, significant differences in parents’ education did not exist between girls (M = 3.38, SD = 1.38) and boys (M = 3.42, SD = 1.45), t(156) = −.16, ns, or between L1 (M = 3.45, SD = 1.16) and ELL (M = 3.35, SD = 1.55) children, t(152) = .44, ns. Similarly, within Group 2, there were no significant differences in parents’ education between girls (M = 3.38, SD = 1.38) and boys (M = 3.42, SD = 1.45), t(156) = −.16, ns, or between L1 (M = 3.87, SD = 1.44) and ELL (M = 3.00, SD = 1.65) children, t(50) = 2.01, ns.

Measures Parent Questionnaire. Parents provided demographic information about their child (name, gender, date of birth, grade, and teacher) and about themselves (parent/guardian name, mother’s and father’s education, etc.). Parents were asked to indicate for both the child’s mother and father (if applicable) their highest level of education attained. TERA-2. The TERA-2 (Reid et al., 1989) was used to measure the early reading abilities of children in Group 1. This is a standardized and nationally normed measure, often used for testing young children’s emerging literacy. Children begin the test with the appropriate question according to their age (e.g., 5-year-olds start with Item 10) and continue through

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 5, 2015

Harper, Pelletier / Assessing Early Literacy 189

the items until they make 5 consecutive errors. Each test item measures a component of early literacy (alphabet knowledge, conventions of print, or meaning), and items are presented in a sequence of increasing difficulty, but are not grouped according to their category (i.e., alphabet, conventions, and meaning). Children in Group 1 were administered the TERA-2 as it was the most recently published version at the time of data collection. The authors of the test have reported sufficient content, construct, and criterion-predictive validity, and have also indicated strong reliability scores of .91 and .90 for Form A and B, respectively, of the TERA-2 (Reid et al., 1989). TERA-3. One year later, a more recent version of the TERA had been published, and provided a measure of early reading ability for children in Group 2. The TERA-3 (Reid et al., 2001), includes items that measure the same three components of early reading measured by the TERA-2. However, the TERA-3 provides individual scores of children’s early literacy in each of the three areas, as three individual subtests are administered individually to each child. For each subtest, children start with the appropriate test item according to their age (e.g., for the Alphabet subtest 5-year-olds start with Item 1) and continue through each subtest until they either complete all items in the subtest or until three consecutive questions (within a subtest) are answered incorrectly. If a child fails to complete all items in a subtest, he or she moves on to the next subtest, starting with the appropriate item number for his or her age. The authors of the TERA-3 have reported sufficient content, construct, and criterion-predictive validity, and strong reliability of .91, .83, and .90 for the alphabet, conventions, and meaning subtests, respectively (Reid et al., 2001). There is also evidence of the concurrent validity between the two versions of the TERA. When comparing the TERA-2 and TERA-3, correlation coefficients range from .85 to .98 and are significant for both Forms A and B, and for all subtests of the TERA-3 (Reid et al., 2001).

Procedures The families were recruited through kindergarten classes in a Toronto area school board. Parents who agreed to participate were asked to sign the consent form and complete the Parent Questionnaire (described above). During year one, trained researchers individually administered the TERA-2 (Reid et al., 1989) to child participants (Group 1). The following year, researchers administered the TERA-3 (Reid et al., 2001) to a different group of children (Group 2). All children were tested in the fall, shortly after they started kindergarten.

Results A series of independent samples t tests involving the TERA-2 and TERA-3 was conducted and a Bonferroni correction to account for multiple t tests was applied to each analysis.

Group 1: TERA-2 Children’s scores on the TERA-2 were analyzed to determine whether gender and/or language group differences exist in children’s mean standard scores when alphabet, conventions,

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 5, 2015

190 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

and meaning items were compiled to produce a total standard score for each child. As stated, this version of the test does not divide test items into different subtests, but rather, one total standard score is produced and is typically reported as a measure of children’s overall reading ability. The results of an independent samples t test indicated that boys (M = 99.33, SD = 17.49) did not significantly differ from girls (M = 103.33, SD = 14.79), t(166) = 1.60, ns, in their standard scores on the TERA-2. The eta square index indicated that 2% of the variance was accounted for by a child’s gender. Results indicated that ELL children (M = 101.66, SD = 15.27) did not differ from their L1 peers (M = 101.72, SD = 17.10), t(158) = .03, ns, when scores from all items of the TERA-2 were combined, and total scores were compared across language groups. The eta square index indicated that 0% of the variance on the TERA-2 was accounted for by a child’s language status.

Group 2: TERA-3 Children’s scores on the TERA-3 were analyzed to determine whether gender and/or language group differences exist in children’s mean standard scores, on each of the three subtests of the TERA-3. For the alphabet subtest, the results indicated that boys (M = 10.18, SD = 3.54) did not significantly differ from girls (M = 11.15, SD = 3.04), t(70) = 1.25, ns. Similarly, for the conventions subtest, boys’ scores (M = 9.12, SD = 2.46) were not significantly different from those of girls (M = 9.08, SD = 3.06), t(70) = −.07, ns. Although girls’ scores (M = 9.15, SD = 2.05) were higher than boys (M = 7.79, SD = 2.78) on the meaning subtest of the TERA-3, this finding was not significant after employing the Bonferroni correction, t(70) = 2.40, ns. The eta square index indicated that 2%, 0%, and 8% of the variance on the alphabet, conventions, and meaning subtests, respectively, was accounted for by a child’s gender. Further analyses investigated whether L1 and ELL children differed in their standard scores on any of the three subtests of the TERA-3. Results showed that ELL children (M = 11.27, SD = 3.28) did not significantly differ from their L1 peers (M = 10.79, SD = 3.18), t(53) = −.55, ns, on the alphabet subtest. ELL (M = 8.95, SD = 3.09) and L1 (M = 9.24, SD = 2.68) children did not differ in their scores on the conventions subtest, t(53) = .37, ns. However, L1 children (M = 9.55, SD = 2.43) outperformed ELL children (M = 7.36, SD = 1.89) on the meaning subtest of the TERA-3, t(53) = 3.56, p < .01, and this finding remained significant after employing the Bonferroni correction. The eta square index indicated that 1%, 0%, and 19% of the variance on the alphabet, conventions, and meaning subtests, respectively, was accounted for by a child’s language status (L1 or ELL). See Table 1 for all relevant means and standard deviations. A final set of analyses involved comparing girls and boys and L1 and ELL children’s Reading Quotient (RQ) scores, to ensure that differences could not be attributed to test characteristics or different samples. The RQ from the TERA-3 represents each child’s average performance across the three subtests, and all children from Group 2 were included in these analyses. Results indicated that significant differences did not exist between girls (M = 98.64, SD = 13.40) and boys (M = 93.73, SD = 15.26), t(70) = 1.46, ns, or between L1 (M = 99.06, SD = 14.60) and ELL (M = 94.82, SD = 14.33) children, t(53) = 1.06, ns.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 5, 2015

Harper, Pelletier / Assessing Early Literacy 191

Table 1 Means (and Standard Deviations) for TERA-2 Total Standard Scores and TERA-3 Subtest Standard Scores Gender Test/Subtest TERA-2 total TERA-3 alphabet TERA-3 conventions TERA-3 meaning

Language

Girls

Boys

L1

ELL

103.33 (14.79) 11.15 (3.04) 9.08 (3.06) 9.15 (2.05)

99.33 (17.49) 10.18 (3.54) 9.12 (2.46) 7.79 (2.78)

101.72 (17.10) 10.79 (3.18) 9.24 (2.68) 9.55 (2.43)

101.66 (15.27) 11.27 (3.28) 8.95 (3.09) 7.36 (1.89)

Note: TERA-2 = The Test of Early Reading Ability–2nd Edition; TERA-3 = The Test of Early Reading Ability–3rd Edition; L1 = English first language children; ELL = English language learners.

The eta square index indicated that 3% of the variance in RQ scores was accounted for by a child’s gender, and 2% was accounted for by language status.

Discussion Gender and language group differences were investigated on the TERA-2 and TERA-3. In phase one, children’s total standard scores on the TERA-2 represented their combined abilities in alphabet knowledge, conventions of print, and meaning. Results showed no gender or language group differences in children’s total scores on the TERA-2 or on children’s RQ scores on the TERA-3. In phase two of the study, children were administered the TERA-3, and individual scores on each of the three subtests were obtained. Findings revealed that L1 children scored significantly higher than ELL children on the meaning subtest; although girls outperformed boys on this subtest as well, this finding was no longer statistically significant after employing the Bonferroni correction. Thus, although neither language nor gender group differences were evident when using composite scores of early literacy abilities, language group differences in children’s comprehension were observed when this component was measured individually. Although previous research has suggested gender differences in children’s early reading scores (Clark & Kragler, 2005; Kermode, Rawlinson, & Tuck, 2003; Lynch, 2002), studies are inconsistent in explaining exactly how girls and boys differ in their early reading abilities (e.g., Gambell & Hunter, 1999; Lynch, 2002). The results of the current study suggest that we cannot confirm nor rule out children’s ability to infer meaning as an explanation for the roots of gender differences that other studies have found in early reading. It is noteworthy that after employing the Bonferroni adjustment, the gender difference was no longer significant, suggesting an inaccurate finding as a result of a Type I error. Therefore, future research should further examine gender differences on the TERA, to provide evidence that either confirms or disconfirms the role of gender in children’s ability to infer meaning from print. Why might girls outperform boys in tests of reading comprehension? Gambell and Hunter (1999) suggest that these differences may be attributed to gender socialization in

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 5, 2015

192 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

and out of the home. They argue that girls may more frequently engage in literacy activities with their parents during the early years, prior to starting school, perhaps because of gender socialization that portrays reading as a female activity. The authors also suggest that evolving societal expectations for females to become well educated, and to achieve professionally, may contribute to girls’ engagement in educational activities at a young age. Finally, it is suggested that young boys often prefer active and group activities, as opposed to passive and solitary activities such as reading. Although boys may receive comparable instruction from parents and teachers who assist them in learning the alphabet, or understanding conventions of print, their engagement in intensive reading, involving discussion of characters and plot, may be limited, compared to girls. As a result, boys’ comprehension may be reduced, even though their knowledge of the alphabet and conventions of print is similar to that of girls. In addition, children of varying English language abilities show differences in their performance on tests of early reading ability, such as the TERA-2 (Lynch, 2003; Pelletier & Corter, 2005). More specifically, ELL children receive lower scores on reading tests that specifically measure comprehension (Sen & Blatchford, 2001; Verhoeven, 1990). Some researchers have suggested that perhaps ELL children’s reading comprehension suffers as a result of the teaching methods employed in many ELL programs. For example, Sen and Blatchford (2001) report that for the ELL class involved in their study, the curriculum focused on phonics and word recognition, whereas there was limited focus on reading comprehension. Therefore, weaker reading comprehension skills of ELL students may be a result of ELL teaching approaches that neglect to incorporate reading comprehension as a focus of instruction. The results of the current study are consistent with Sen and Blatchford’s (2001) conclusions, suggesting that there is a need for ELL teachers to adjust ELL instruction to promote both word recognition and reading comprehension. The authors of the TERA-3 have stated that the development of their test was based on a normative sample that well represented the general population of children in the United States (Reid et al., 2001). They argue that the normative sample included equal proportions of girls and boys and children from various ethnic backgrounds. However, the sample may not have included children who were at varying stages of English language fluency. Furthermore, this normative sample was drawn from the United States, whereas the current sample included only Canadian children, who may represent different ethnic and linguistic backgrounds. For example, a large proportion (63%) of the ELL children in the current sample spoke an East Indian language at home. U.S. samples may predominantly include other language groups that are more similar to English (i.e., same alphabet), which may lead to smaller gaps in English reading among U.S. L1 and ELL children. In developing the test, it is unclear whether the authors tested for gender or language differences in each of the three subtests of the TERA-3. However, potential differences should be acknowledged and, furthermore, considered in developing normative samples for future versions of the test. The findings of the current study point to the importance of evaluating children’s early reading development using measures of children’s abilities in individual components of early literacy. Recent research examining children’s early reading abilities has continued to report either findings from the TERA or TERA-2 (Clark & Kragler, 2005; Reid & Hresko, 1980; Tracey & Young, 2006), or children’s total scores (RQ) from the TERA-3 (Register,

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 5, 2015

Harper, Pelletier / Assessing Early Literacy 193

2004). In using these scores, children’s abilities in different areas of early literacy may go unrecognized. The present study speaks to the importance of evaluating children’s scores in all three subtests of the TERA-3, particularly if comparison groups include diverse samples of children. The current study has identified language differences in children’s early reading development by showing that when children’s scores on each individual component of early reading are considered separately (as measured by each of the three subtests of the TERA-3), L1 children outperform ELL children on the subtest measuring children’s ability to infer meaning from text. Similar effects are not observed when reading ability is measured using the TERA-2. Based on Cohen’s (1968) criteria, the observed effect size of 19% for language is considered large, suggesting that there is a high likelihood that the language group difference would be replicated in future studies. Alternatively, the result related to gender showed a medium effect size (8%) and was not significant. Therefore, findings from the current study could not confirm that girls and boys differ in their abilities in this area, but future research should further investigate potential gender differences. Future research should also involve random assignment of children to different testing groups, to ensure that observed differences are in fact related to test characteristics, as opposed to sample characteristics. In addition, future research should examine these and other group differences in children’s abilities in all areas of early literacy, and should attempt to investigate these differences using other measures of early reading. Only then will we fully understand how children’s reading development varies as a function of these characteristics. These findings will assist researchers, educators, and practitioners in developing programs that focus on areas in which specific groups of children are most in need of instruction, and will attempt to provide all children with reading programs that most suitably foster their individual reading development.

References Brown, L. A. (1997). Student performance in a reading recovery program and the identification of specific learning disabilities. Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 09A. Clark, P., & Kragler, S. (2005). The impact of including writing materials in early childhood classrooms on the early literacy development of children from low-income families. Early Child Development and Care, 175(4), 285-301. Cohen, J. (1968). Multiple regression as a general data-analytic system. Psychological bulletin, 70(6, Pt.1), 426-443. Elliott, C. D., Murray, D. J., & Pearson L. S. (1979). British Ability Scales (BAS). Slough: NFER-Nelson. Gambell, T. J., & Hunter, D. M. (1999). Rethinking gender differences in literacy. Canadian Journal of Education, 24(1), 1-16. Gauthier, S., & Madison, C. (1998). Kindergarten Language Screening Test-2 (KLST-2). Austin, TX: Pro-Ed, Inc. Halpern, D. F. (1997). Sex differences in intelligence: Implications for education. American Psychologist, 52(10), 1091-1102. Hammer, C. S., Miccio, A. W., & Wagstaff, D. A. (2003). Home literacy experiences and their relationship to bilingual preschoolers’ developing English literacy abilities: An initial investigation. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 34(1), 20-30. Haney, M., & Hill, J. (2004). Relationships between parent-teaching activities and emergent literacy in preschool children. Early Child Development and Care, 174(3), 215.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 5, 2015

194 Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment

Kermode, H., Rawlinson, C., & Tuck, B. (2003). Gender differences in reading and spelling achievement among year 3 and 4 students and classroom “engaged time.” New Zealand Journal of Educational Studies, 38(2), 227-233. Kuby, P., & Aldridge, J. (1997). Direct versus indirect environmental print instruction and early reading ability in kindergarten children. Reading Psychology, 18(2), 91-104. Lynch, J. (2002). Parents’ self-efficacy beliefs, parents’ gender, children’s reader self-perceptions, reading achievement and gender. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(1), 54-67. Lynch, J. S. (2003). Shared storybook reading in families from diverse cultural backgrounds. Dissertation Abstracts International, 64, 12A. MacFarlane, L. M. (2001). Gender differences in reading achievement and early literacy experiences. MA research project, Kean University. Neale, M. D. (1989). Neale Analysis of Reading Abilities (Rev. British Edition). Slough: NFER-Nelson. Pang, E. S., & Kamil, M. L. (2004). Second-language issues in early literacy and instruction (Publication series No. 1). Philadelphia: Mid-Atlantic Lab. for Student Success. Pelletier, J., & Corter, C. (2005). Design, implementation, and outcomes of a school readiness program for diverse families. School Community Journal, 15(1), 89-116. Register, D. (2004). The effects of live music groups versus an educational children’s television program on the emergent literacy of young children. Journal of Music Therapy, 41(1), 2-27. Reid, D. K., & Hresko, W. P. (1980). A developmental study of the relation between oral language and early reading in learning disabled and normally achieving children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3(4), 54-61. Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P., & Hammill, D. D. (1981). The Test of Early Reading Ability. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P., & Hammill, D. D. (1989). The Test of Early Reading Ability–Second edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Reid, D. K., Hresko, W. P., & Hammill, D. D. (2001). The Test of Early Reading Ability–Third edition. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Sacks, C. H., & Mergendoller, J. R. (1997). The relationship between teachers’ theoretical orientation toward reading and student outcomes in kindergarten children with different initial reading abilities. American Educational Research Journal, 34(4), 721-739. Saskatchewan Education, Training and Employment. (1996). 1994 Provincial learning assessment in language arts (reading and writing). Regina: Government of Saskatchewan, Department of Education, Training and Employment. Sen, R., & Blatchford, P. (2001). Reading in a second language: Factors associated with progress in young children. Educational Psychology, 21(2), 189-202. Soderman, A. K., Chhikara, S., Hsiu-Ching, C., & Kuo, E. (1999). Gender differences that affect emerging literacy in first grade children: The U.S., India, and Taiwan. International Journal of Early Childhood, 31(2), 9-16. Tracey, D. H., & Young, J. W. (2006). Technology and early literacy: The impact of an integrated learning system on high risk kindergartners’ achievement, Reading Psychology, 28, 443-467. Verhoeven, L. T. (1990). Acquisition of reading in a second language. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(2), 90-114.

Downloaded from jpa.sagepub.com at UNIV OF CALIFORNIA SANTA CRUZ on April 5, 2015