Session Summary
Share...

Direct link:

2-093 - Beyond Vocabulary Size: New Considerations for Receptive Vocabulary Assessment in the Preschool Years

Fri, March 22, 10:00 to 11:30am, Hilton Baltimore, Floor: Level 2, Key 1

Session Type: Paper Symposium

Integrative Statement

Accurate assessment of preschoolers’ receptive vocabulary is critical for understanding the processes of vocabulary growth and for predicting long-term language outcomes. Traditional assessments measure overall knowledge by quantifying vocabulary size (e.g., PPVT, Dunn & Dunn 2007). However, several studies have demonstrated the importance of considering factors beyond the number of words a child knows. Understanding factors like lexical processing (Fernald, Perfors & Marchman, 2006), word learning processes, and knowledge within different grammatical categories (e.g., nouns, verbs, prepositions) can augment the picture. This symposium presents four papers that focus on these factors, thereby expanding on traditional approaches to receptive vocabulary assessment.

The first paper presents the results of a longitudinal study with typically developing children ages 2 to 4. Regression analyses indicate that both vocabulary size and lexical processing, together, significantly predict later vocabulary outcomes. The second paper presents an eye-tracking paradigm for assessing receptive verb vocabulary using dynamic scene stimuli. Two studies demonstrate the feasibility of this approach: one with toddlers with ASD and a second with late talkers. The third paper discusses the benefits of including novel verb-learning tasks in vocabulary assessment. Typically developing and language-impaired children’s performance is contrasted; results suggest that protracted immature patterns of novel verb acquisition may indicate impaired processing. The final paper assesses children’s comprehension of spatial prepositions, which are important for children’s math learning. Two-year-olds showed comprehension of a number of spatial terms, although low-income children knew fewer than middle-class children and girls did better than boys.

Sub Unit

Chair

Individual Presentations