This paper describes the design and validation of the Emergent Literacy Domains Development Test (ELDT), aimed at evaluating emergent literacy skills of Chilean pre-school pupils. The instrumental case study involved a sample of 210 children from low, low-middle, and middle socioeconomic levels. The factorial analysis confirmed the proposed model, based on four pillars: phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, print awareness and emergent writing, with Cronbach’s alpha reliability of .79 and an omega coefficient of .82 for the total test. The results show that the test presents an optimal factorial structure and internal consistency for the assessment of emergent literacy among Chilean pre-school pupils.
Article Details
How to Cite
Manosalba-Torres, C., & Arancibia-Gutiérrez, B. (2023). Design and validation of the Emergent Literacy Domains Development Test (ELDT) for Pre-school. Ocnos. Journal of reading research, 22(2). https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2023.22.2.339
Manosalba-Torres and Arancibia-Gutierrez: Design and validation of the Emergent Literacy Domains Development Test (ELDT) for
Pre-school
Introduction
Emergent Literacy (EL) skills start to develop in early childhood, as children are
introduced to reading and writing processes, and the skills are consolidated thanks
to formal education (; ; ). These skills include knowledge and behaviours shown by children, even though they
are not incorporated into literacy activities related to conventional reading and
writing (; ; ). Manifestations include oral communication skills and attempts by infants to interpret
and use printed symbols to communicate (; ), and these manifestations constitute a set of reading and writing predictors. The
predictors relate to Phonological Awareness (PA), Alphabet Knowledge (AK), Print Awareness
(PrA), and Emergent Writing (EW) (; ; ; ).
The literature does not identify an exact time when these skills begin to develop,
since children gradually advance mastering them by using oral language and through
pre-reading and pre-writing activities (). However, highlighted that most EL skills develop naturally during the first three years, mostly
by handling books, labelling images, and listening to stories. More advanced EL skills
appear as children grow. Emergent behaviours that simulate real reading and writing
activities include pretending to read, doodling as part of play, and connecting stories
to real life. Hence, EL shows how reading and writing skills progressively emerge
during oral and written language development. During EL development, children also
begin to acquire opinions, behaviours, and habits regarding reading and books, which
they retain throughout their personal development ().
Likewise, research showed that pre-school EL development explains differences in reading
and writing acquisition in later years – evidence of a direct link between EL and
formal or conventional literacy (; ; ; ). argued that literacy learning is slower and more difficult with low EL skills early
in the process. Reading and writing difficulties may even last through the end of
basic education and sometimes persist into adolescence (; ; ). Therefore, emergent literacy skills are precursors to the development of conventional
forms of reading and writing acquisition ().
Consequently, fostering and developing EL skills does not just favour the acquisition
of the reading-writing process as a broad construct, but also provides the tools for
learners’ continuous socio-cognitive development. Therefore, and in line with the
literature, EL skills and/or internal domains correspond to the above set of literacy
predictors.
Phonological awareness (PA)
According to the literature, PA corresponds to the ability to develop an awareness
that speech-related sound units (phonemes and syllables) constitute words, even though
the units have no meaning in isolation (; ; ; ). PA skills comprise the ability to identify, reflect and manipulate sounds that
make up words according to their unit of analysis (syllables, rhymes, phonemes) and
the tasks infants are able to perform with these units (detect, synthesise, segment)
().
PA is the best predictor of reading and writing learning (; ; ; ). Results of meta-analyses by ) and showed that all phonological skills were related to reading acquisition, with phonological
awareness being the most important predictor. Studies like , conducted with Spanish-speaking children, also showed that PA can predict reading
learning in first grade (), and that it interrelates with other emergent literacy skills of first-grade pupils.
The findings relate to results by , who found that PA, AK and PrA are precursors to decoding, i.e., the ability to identify
printed words and produce meaningful sounds from those words accurately and fluently
(; ).
Alphabet knowledge (AK)
AK allows for the recognition of alphabet letters and use them for reading and writing
(; ; ). Knowledge of letters is a good predictor for the acquisition of the alphabetic
principle () and contributes to the development and consolidation of phonological sensitivity,
which facilitates grapheme-phoneme correspondence and vice versa (; ; ). Evidence suggests that children with knowledge of at least five letters of the
alphabet when entering the first grade gain a significantly higher reading level than
peers without that knowledge (; ; ). Also, some studies have shown that AK is the best predictor for reading and writing
outcomes in second and fourth grade (; ; ; ), that is, in the short and long term. In Chile, tested the predictive effect knowledge of letters has on written language learning.
They found that children who knew five letters of the alphabet at least on entering
first grade acquired much higher reading proficiency than peers without that knowledge.
Print awareness (PrA)
PrA -or textual knowledge- refers to the recognition of the characteristic forms of
written texts (), specifically children’s knowledge of the nature and conventions of written language,
such as understanding cultural particularities about the direction in which words
must be read and letter names (). In addition, it includes the visual identification of elements of written language,
such as punctuation (), capital letters, cover, title and page recognition, knowledge of printing conventions
(left to right, top to bottom), and concepts about words and letters (first word,
last word, first letter, last letter, among others). Therefore, PrA is strongly linked
to the writing/copying of names, writing of names and, subsequently, spontaneous writing
().
Direct prediction of PrA from early reading has been scarcely explored, while this
construct might be predictive of text reading, rather than word reading skills (). This is crucial, as PrA also represents an early indicator of spelling skills and
influences reading acquisition (). Regarding the latter, demonstrated in a longitudinal study covering pre-school to first-grade years that
PrA of the writing system was the only statistically significant predictor for early
reading acquisition. These findings also emerged in similar studies, but with different
research designs (; ). Consequently, both PA and PrA are precursors to decoding (; ).
Emergent writing (EW)
EW is a key domain for understanding the development and evolution of emergent literacy
(Ferreiro & Teberosky, 1982; ; ; ). EW encompasses the manual act of producing physical or mechanical marks, the meanings
subjects attribute to these marks, and an understanding of how written language works
(orthographic knowledge) (; ). These skills allow individuals to reach the reading threshold and enable conventional
education and consolidation of decoding processes (; , ).
The National Early Literacy Panel () proposed 11 EL-related skills that consolidate thanks to formal conventional literacy
instruction. These skills fall into two categories. First-order skills include alphabet
knowledge, phonological awareness, rapid automatic naming (RAN), object and colour
RAN, name writing and phonological memory. Second-order skills include concepts about
print, reading preparation, oral language, and visual processing.
However, for this research, the claims of , and were considered. They emphasised that pure emergent literacy skills are PA, AK, PrA
and EW. Psychometric tests that have been validated in Chile to evaluate EL do not
cover all these proposed skills. For example, both the phonological awareness assessment test and the phonological-type metalinguistic skills test for the construction of the ELDT evaluate only PA-related skills. The initial literacy test, also observed as part of this work, focuses on 5-year-olds, and considers assessment
of word and sentence reading, a skill that develops after the acquisition of EL skills.
This latter instrument contains words and images that require updating to be useful
for the contemporary context.
Therefore, the first version of the ELDT seeks to evaluate the main skills required
for the acquisition of the reading-writing process. Consequently, the development
of this instrument was motivated by the limitations of the instruments available at
a national level today.
Method
The primary aim of this study was to design and validate a psychometric test to measure
emergent literacy skills of Chilean pre-school pupils corresponding to Transition
Levels 1 and 2 (pre-kindergarten and kindergarten; ages 4 to 6).
Construction and validation of ELDT content
The instrument was built by deploying complementary strategies. At the empirical level,
national psychometric tests measuring some EL skills were reviewed. Three validated
tests of Chilean authors, shown in table 1, were found.
Table 1.ELDT design instruments Source: Own elaboration
Instrument
Authors
Reported reliability
Design/validation country
Participants
Initial literacy test
Malva Villalón and Andrea Rolla
Phonological awareness: .72
Print awareness: .63
Alphabet knowledge: .93
Reading: .83
Name writing: .93
Overall score: .96
Chile / Peru
250 5-6-year-olds
Phonological awareness test
Virginia Varela and Zulema
De Barbieri
Cronbach’s alpha overall: .893
The test does not record Cronbach’s alpha at the task level.
Chile
120 children (distributed evenly) across four age ranges: 4 to 4 years 11 months,
5 to 5 years 11 months, 6 to 6 years 11 months, 7 to 7 years 11 months
Phonological metalinguistic skills test
Paula Yakuba, María Valenzuela, and Mónica Renz
Cronbach’s alpha overall: .81
The test does not record Cronbach’s alpha at the task level.
Chile
1,088 4-6-year-olds
Source: Own elaboration
Instrument revision allowed to order the variables of interest related to the development
of the internal EL domains and design the items to measure them. The four tasks with
their respective subtasks and/or items were generated as reported in Figure 1 and Annex 1.
Figure 1Organisational chart of EL domains: tasks-subtasks of analysis and scores
Three national and two international experts then agreed to judge the asses in order
to ensure the validity of the content. Participation requirements were possessing
a doctoral degree in education or psychology, and research experience related to emergent
literacy, reading and/or writing in early childhood education. The experts were asked
to indicate their level of agreement with the adequacy and relevance of the tasks,
subtasks and items, using the response format reproduced in annexes 2 and 3, where 1 equals ‘strongly disagree’ and 6 ‘strongly agree’.
Overall, the experts evaluated the instrument as good or excellent. But they also
requested changes to the instructions of the AK task to clarify that the name of the
letters was requested; the syllabic segmentation subtask to sort words according to
length (syllable number); the final syllabic sound-rhyming subtasks to sort words
according to difficulty, starting with the easiest; and an example item for each task
and subtask.
Participant consent
Educational establishments that were potentially interested in participating were
contacted to facilitate the test’s practical implementation. The study purpose was
explained to the establishments’ representatives, who then decided on participation.
Subsequently, pre-school education and special education teachers received a training
regarding the instrument and to teach them how to administer it to the final sample.
At this stage, informed consent was received from the guardians and legal guardians
of the participating children. Sampling took place between October and December 2019.
As reward, each establishment received reports with the results of each pupil, which
were included as part of the school year’s final evaluations.
The sample comprised 210 pupils, 86 from transition level 1 and 124 from transition level 2, from five educational establishments in Metropolitan Region, Libertador General
Bernardo O’Higgins Region and Biobío Region. Average age was 5 years 6 months. The
establishments were public or state-subsidised private schools. For the analysis,
the sample included children from low, low-middle, and middle socioeconomic levels
(SEL), according to percentages of priority and preferential pupils enrolled in each establishment. Specifically, the sample involved 72 low (34%),
69 low-middle (33%) and 69 middle SEL students (33%).
Data analysis
Reliability of basic psychometric properties of the instrument was determined through
Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of internal consistency, both for the overall score
and for each task contained in the test (PA, AK, PrA, EW). However, considering criticism
of Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for estimating the reliability of response data, the
omega coefficient was used in addition. A Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) and a
correlation between tasks were performed to examine factorial structure and model
adequacy. Finally, to complement the study, differences by courses (TL1 and TL2) were
analysed. All analyses were performed using RStudio software, version 7.8.
Results
Descriptive analysis
Table 2 shows the average age of pupils was 67.44 months (standard deviation 6.7), that is,
5 years 6 months. Average scores for the different tasks were 21.31 for PA (SD 4.1),
36.28 for AK (SD 22.9), 5.9 for PrA (SD 2.2) and 12 for EW (SD 3.3). The table also
shows a minimum age of 49 months (4 years 1 month) and maximum age of 79 months (6
years 9 months).
According to data in histograms and scatter plots, it was necessary to confirm the
data using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov Test for samples larger than 50 subjects before
analysing variables’ correlations. The values were below .05, therefore, the Spearman
rank correlation coefficient was used for non-parametric tests. Table 3 shows all correlations between the variables were direct and significant at the .001
level. The relationships between PA and AK, PrA and EW were direct and significant,
with a medium effect. As far as AK with PrA and EW were concerned, the relationships
were direct, significant, and with a medium-large effect, while the PrA-EW relationship
was also direct, significant, and of medium effect.
Table 3.Spearman rank correlation coefficient between variables
Reliability of α=.79 was obtained for the total ELDT. In general, Cronbach’s alpha
values equal to or greater than .70 were considered good (Argibay, 2006). Table 4 shows the α for each subscale.
Table 4.ELDT Cronbach’s alpha coefficient by subscale
A second reliability analysis was performed using the omega coefficient, since it
allows calculating reliability with the factorial load of the items (Domínguez-Lara
& Merino-Soto, , ). The test had an omega coefficient of .82, which represents a good internal consistency
value (). Also, the dimensions yielded ω values above .72, confirming the instrument’s reliability
(table 5).
Since items were dichotomous, a tetrachoric matrix CFA was conducted to evaluate the
adequacy of the data for the model. This analysis was selected to contrast the formulation
of the instrument with the proposed theoretical model. Therefore, it was necessary
to corroborate the proposed links between items, subtasks, and tasks (). However, variables of instruments or battery-type psychometric tests are usually
correlated (), so models may present adjustment difficulties. However, comparative fit index .976,
root mean square error of approximation .024, both excellent according to , with corresponding 90% consistency index of [.012, .032] and standardised root mean
square of .122 were obtained. The χ2 statistic was 503.679 (p<.001). Figure 2 shows the CFA route diagram, which agrees with the theoretical proposal. The factorial
loads of the items were about .07, an optimal value to avoid eliminating items. In
turn, the relationships between skills are significant. As a whole, the analysis showed
a good model fit and a satisfactory saturation of the items.
To detect differences between TL1 and TL2, a 1x2 univariate mean analysis was performed
through the Mann-Whitney T-test, as shown in table 6. The table shows significant differences in favour of TL2 children related to Phonemic
Synthesis (PS), PrA, and EW variables, with a small to medium effect on PS, a large
one on PrA, and a small to medium one on EW. The differences are shown in the boxplot
in Figure 3.
The objective of this study was to account for the psychometric properties of the
Emergent Literacy Domains Development Test (ELDT) among pre-school children in Chile.
The model demonstrated a structure of four main factors, which grouped the tasks of
the test around EL skills. The factors were phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge,
print awareness, and emergent writing (; ; ).
The Cronbach’s alpha for each subscale of the instrument met the appropriate criteria
with the cut-off point of .70 (). The values were even better than those of ELDTs currently used in Chile. Also,
the omega coefficient yielded good reliability for the subscales and the test in general
(Domínguez-Lara & Merino-Soto, , ), corroborating the reliability of the instrument for psychometric uses.
The results showed significant links between the internal domains (PA, AK, PrA, EW),
explained by direct relationships with medium and large effects on their interactions.
Specifically, AK, PrA, and EW develop according to PA, as found in studies by , , , , and , among others. It can be deduced that reinforcing AK would increase PrA and EW, explained
by the relationship between the knowledge of the names of letters, conceptual knowledge
of writing, and spontaneous writing (). Similarly, enhancing PrA could improve emergent writing skills of pre-school children,
as observed in the study.
At an educational level, the differences related to PS, AK, and EW tasks may be due
to age differences, since TL1 pupils start education at the age of 4 and TL2 pupils
at the age of 5. Although TL1 attendance is not mandatory in Chile, the National Socioeconomic
Characterisation Survey () showed that 88.3% of Chilean children between 4 and 5 years of age study at TL1
and TL2. Future research could focus on the level of development as key factor, as
it may differentiate TL2 pupils with and without TL1 experience, especially since
figures by the showed that during the first two years of the pandemic, TL2 dropout reached 130%,
compared to the 10-year dropout rate.
Another differentiating factor could also relate to contextual variables, as shown
by , who found that vocabulary development, intelligence and speed of denomination are
related to socio-family variables, such as socioeconomic level. Results showed improved
skills development by children with higher SEL.
In conclusion, the results of the present research showed that each of the tasks proposed
as internal domain of emergent literacy is part of the EL theoretical construct and
must be evaluated before consolidating reading and writing skills, as has been proposed
by several researchers (; ; ; ; ; ). Crucially, to acquire EL skills, it is necessary that children are exposed to quality
experiences that facilitate written and oral language development in early childhood
().
Finally, no quantitative instrument currently exists that measures EL domains and
is statistically validated through tests with Chilean children. However, the present
ELDT could be used in other Spanish-speaking countries, considering adjusting items
that require lexical accommodation, although standard Spanish was used in the present
design. This feature makes it an easier test to translate into other languages, too,
expanding the range of instruments to assess emergent literacy skills, which would
allow conducting comparative studies among children who speak languages other than
Spanish.
Study limitations
A key study limitation was the impossibility of accessing high SEL pupils to enrich
the sample. Also, future research could optimise model adjustment with greater control
of variables such as age, SEL, gender, type of educational establishment, or other
socio-contextual variables of families, and further refine the number of items by
subtasks and tasks.
References
1
Allan, N., Joye, S., & Lonigan, C. (2013). Does Gender moderate the Relations Between
Externalizing Behavior and Key Emergent Literacy Abilities? Evidence From a Longitudinal
Study. Journal of Attention Disorders, 20(10), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087054713512
2
Argibay, J. (2016). Técnicas Psicométricas, Cuestiones de Validez y Confiabilidad.
Subjetividad y Procesos Cognitivos, 8, 15-33.
3
Arab-Moghaddam, N., & Sénéchal, M. (2010). Orthographic and phonological processing
skills in reading and spelling in Persian/English bilinguals. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 25, 140-147. https://doi.org/10.1080/01650250042000320
4
Berná, J. (2015). Inicio de la alfabetización, habilidades prelectoras y contexto
alfabetizador familiar en una muestra de niños uruguayos. Ciencias psicológicas 9(1), 1-8. https://doi.org/10.22235/cp.v9i1.161
5
Bravo-Valdivieso, L., Villalón, M., & Orellana, E. (2006a). Diferencias en la predictividad
de la Lectura Entre Primer Año y Cuarto Año Básicos. Psykhe, 15(1), 3-11.
6
Bravo-Valdivieso, L., Villalón, M., & Orellana, E. (2006b). Predictibilidad del rendimiento
En la lectura: una investigación de seguimiento entre primer y tercer año. Revista Latinoamericana de Psicología, 38(1), 9-20.
7
Blair, R., & Savage, R. (2006). Name writing but not environmental print recognition
is related to letter-sound knowledge and phonological awareness in pre-readers. Reading
and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 19(9), 991-1012. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-006-9027-9
8
Cabell, S. Q., Justice, L. M., Konold, T. R., & McGinty, A. S. (2011). Profiles of
emergent literacy skills among preschool children who are at risk for academic difficulties.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(1), 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2010.05.003
9
Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Tomblin, J. B., & Zhang, X. (2002). A longitudinal investigation
of reading outcomes in children with language impairments. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 45, 1142-1157. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2002/093)
10
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of test. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02310555
11
Deasley, S., Ann Evans, M., Nowal, S., & Willoughby, D. (2016). Sex differences in
Emergent Literacy and Reading Behaviour in junior Kindergarten. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 33(1), 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1177/0829573516645773
12
Dehaene, S. (2015). El cerebro lector: últimas noticias de las neurociencias sobre la lectura, la enseñanza,
el aprendizaje y la dislexia. Siglo veintiunos editores.
13
Domínguez-Lara, S. A. D., & Merino-Soto, C. M. (2015a). ¿Por qué́ es importante reportar
los intervalos de confianza del coeficiente alfa de Cronbach? Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud, 13(2), 1326-1328.
14
Domínguez-Lara, S. A. D., & Merino-Soto, C. M. (2015b). Sobre el reporte de confiabilidad
del Clarp-TDAH, de Salamanca (2010). Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud, 13(2), 1316-1317.
Escobar, J.-P., & Meneses, A. (2014). Initial reading predictors in Spanish according
to SES: is semi-transparency sufficient to explain performance? / Predictores de la
lectura inicial en español según el NSE: ¿es suficiente la semi-transparencia para
explicar su desempeño? Estudios de Psicología, 35(3), 625-635. https://doi.org/10.1080/02109395.2014.965458
17
Ferreiro, E. (2006). La escritura antes de la letra. Revista de Investigación Educativa, 3, 1-52.
18
Ferreiro, E., & Teberosky, A. (1989). Los sistemas de escritura en el desarrollo del niño.
Siglo XXI.
19
Field, A., Miles, J., & Field, Z. (2012). Discovering statistics using R. SAGE Publications.
20
Georgiou, G. K., Torppa, M., Manolitsis, G., Lyytinen, H., & Parrila, R. (2012). Longitudinal
predictors of reading and spelling across languages varying in orthographic consistency.
Reading and Writing, 25(2), 321-346. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-010-9271-x
21
Hannon, P., Nutbrown, C., & Morgan, A. (2019). Effects of extending disadvantaged
families’ teaching of emergent literacy. Research Papers in Education, 50, 1-17. https://doi.org/10.1080/02671522.2019.1568531.
22
Infante, M., (2003). El aprendizaje de la lectura y su sustento lingüístico. Pensamiento
Educativo. Revista de Investigación Educacional Latinoamericana, 32(1), 129-140.
23
Justice, L.M., & Kadaraveck, J. (2002). Using shared storybook to promote emergent
literacy. Council for Exceptional Children, 34(4), 8-14.
24
Konold, T.R., & Pianta, R.C. (2005). Empirically-derived, person-oriented patterns
of school readiness in typically developing children: description and prediction to
first grade achievement. Applied Developmental Science, 9(4), 174-187. https://doi.org/10.1207/s1532480xads0904_1
25
Kline, R. B. (2015). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed). The Guilford Press.
26
Lonigan, C. J., Wagner, R. K., Torgesen, J. K., & Rashotte, C. A. (2007). Test of preschool emergent literacy. Pro-Ed.
27
López-Roldán, P., & Fachelli, S. (2015). Metodología de la investigación social cuantitativa. Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona.
Mariángel, S., & Jiménez, J. (2015). Desarrollo de la conciencia sintáctica y fonológica
en niños chilenos: un estudio transversal. Revista latinoamerica de Psicología, 48(1), 1-7. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rlp.2015.09.010
30
Mendive, S., Lissi, M.R., Bakeman, R., & Reyes, A. (2017). Beyond mother education:
Maternal practices as predictors of early literacy development in Chilean children
rom low-SES households. Early Education and Development, 28(2),167-181. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2016.1197014
31
Melby-Leryag, M., Lyster, S.-A. H., & Hulme, C. (2012). Phonological skills and their
role in learning to read: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 322-352. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026744
McGee, L.M., & Richgels, D.J., (2003). Designing early literacy programs: Strategies for at-risk preschool and kindergarten
children. Guilford Press.
34
Pavelko, S. Lieberman, R.J., Schwartz, J., & Hahs-Vaughn, D. (2018). The contributions
of phonological awareness, alphabet knowledge, and letter writing to name writing
in children with Specific Language Impairment and Typically Developing children. American journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 27(1), 166-180. https://doi.org/10.1044/2017_AJSLP-17-0084
35
Pérez, M., & González, M., (2004). Desarrollo del conocimiento fonológico, experiencia
lectora y dificultad de la tarea. Revista de Logopedia, Foniatría y Audiología, 24(1), 2-15.
36
Pezoa, J., Mendive, S., & Strasser, K. (2018). Reading interest and family literacy
practices from prekindergarten to kindergarten: contributions from a cross-lagged
analysis. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47, 284-295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.12.014
37
Piasta, S., Logan, J., Thomas, L., Zettler-Greeley, C., Bailet, L., & Lewis, K. (2021).
Implementation of a small-group emergent literacy intervention by preschool teachers
and community aides. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 54, 31-43. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2020.08.002
38
Pinto, G., Bigozzi, L., Vezzani, C., & Tarchi, C. (2016). Emergent literacy and reading
acquisition: a longitudinal study from kindergarten to primary school. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 32, 571-587. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10212-016-0314-9
39
Pinto, G., Bigozzi, L., Tarchi, C., Gamannossi, B. A., & Canneti, L. (2015). Cross-lag
analysis of longitudinal associations between primary school students’ writing and
reading skills. Reading and Writing, 28(8), 1233-1255. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-015-9569-9
40
Pinto, A. L., Pessanha, M., & Aguiar, C. (2013). Effects of home environment and center
based child care quality on children’s language, communication, and literacy outcomes.
Early Child-hood Research Quarterly, 28, 94-101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2012.07.001
41
Puranik, C., Phillips, B., Lonigan, C., & Gibson, E. (2018). Home literacy practices
and preschool children’s emergent writing skills: An initial investigation. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 228-238. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2017.10.004
42
Puranik, C., Lonigan, C., & Kim, Y-S. (2011). Contributions of emergent literacy skills
to name writing, letter writing, and spelling in preschool children. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 26(4), 465-474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2011.03.002
43
Purcell-Gates, V., & Dahl, K. L. (1991). Low-SES children’s success and failure at
early literacy learning in skills-based classrooms. Journal of Reading Behavior, 23, 1-34.
Rugerio, J. P., & Guevara, Y. (2015). Alfabetización inicial y su desarrollo desde
la Educación infantil: Revisión del concepto e investigaciones aplicadas. Ocnos, 13, 22-42. https://doi.org/10.18239/ocnos_2015.13.02
46
Saracho, O. N. (2017). Research, policy, and practice in early child- hood literacy.
Early Child Development and Care, 187(3-4), 305-321. https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2016.1261512
47
Skibbe, L., Justice, M., Zucker, T., & McGinty, A. (2008). Relations Among Maternal
Literacy Beliefs, Home Literacy Practices, and the Emergent Literacy Skills of Preschoolers
With Specific Language Impairment. Early education and development, 19(1), 68–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409280701839015
48
Strasser, K., & Lissi, M. R. (2009). Home and instruction. Effects on emergent literacy
in A sample of Chilean kindergarten children. Scientific Studies of Reading, 13(2), 175-204. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888430902769525
49
Schwartz, R. (2017). Handbook of Child Language Disorders (2nd ed.). Routlegde.
50
Teale, W., & Sulzby, E. (1986). Emergent Literacy: Writing and reading, Ablex
51
Ventura-León, J., & Caycho-Rodríguez, T. (2017). El coeficiente Omega: un método alternativo
para la estimación de la confiabilidad. Revista Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales, Niñez y Juventud, 15(1), 625-627.
52
Villalón, M. (2008). Alfabetización inicial: claves de acceso a la lectura y escritura desde los primeros
meses de vida. Santiago- Ediciones UC.
53
Villalón, M., & Rolla, A. Prueba de Alfabetización Inicial -PAI. Universidad Católica de
Chile.
54
Whitehurst, G., & Lonigan, C. (1998). Child development and emergent literacy. Child Development, 69, 848-872.
55
Yakuba, P., Valenzuela, Mª F., & Renz, M. (2016). Prueba para evaluar habilidades metalinguísticas de tipo fonológico 4 a 6 años. Ediciones UC.
Notes
[1] During the application stage of the test, Chile experienced a social uprising, which
started on 18th October 2019. During the months-long upheaval, many educational establishments had
to alter normal functioning, which impaired data collection from more establishments.
[2] Corresponds to the pre-kindergarten level of pre-school education in Chile and covers
children between 3 years 9 months and 4 years 9 months.
[3] Corresponds to the kindergarten level of pre-school education in Chile and covers
children between 4 years 9 months, and 5 years 9 months or more, depending on the
date of birth.
[4] According to the , a priority pupil (from pre-kindergarten to 4th grade) is one whose socio-economic
and family situation could hinder learning. Data provided by the establishments showed
these are low SEL pupils.
[5] According to the , a preferred pupil belongs to the poorest 80% of the population, registered under
the social characterisation instrument, the Social Household Registry. These are low-middle
SEL pupils, according to data provided by the establishments.
Appendix
Annex 1
Organisation of ELDT by subtask, number of items and examples of instructions by subtasks
Subtask
What is evaluated?
Example of items
Belongs to task
Phonemic synthesis
PS evaluates mastering of speech sounds that make up words.
The test consisted of seven evaluation items and the child had to mark the correct
answer. Each correct answer equalled one point.
"Mark the drawing that corresponds to /M//O//N//K//E//Y/".
Phonological awareness
Rhymes-Final syllabic sound
RY.FSS evaluates mastering the similarity of final sounds at the syllable level.
The test consisted of five items and the child had to mark the image whose description
sounded different from two other images.
For each correct answer, one point was awarded.
“Listen to the names of these drawings. Two end the same way and one ends differently.
I want you to mark the one that ends differently.” Showing the example, naming the
figures, and adding: "mouse and house end the same, tree ends differently. Mark the
one that ends differently: tree."
Alliteration-Initial syllabic sound
A.ISS evaluates mastering the similarity of initial sounds at the syllable level.
The test consisted of four items, and the child had to mark the image that sounded
different from two others. For each correct answer, one point was awarded.
"Listen to the names of these drawings. Two start the same way and one starts differently.
I want you to mark the one that starts differently." Showing the example, naming the
figures, and adding: "dog and door start the same, pineapple starts differently. Mark
the one that starts differently: pineapple."
Syllabic segmentation
SS evaluates mastering the syllable count within a word, considers the evaluation
of monosyllabic, disyllabic, trisyllabic and four-syllabic words.
The test consisted of six items, and one point was awarded per correct answer.
"Look at the first drawing on this page (show), it’s a donkey. The word donkey has
two syllables: DO-NKEY. You must draw a line for each sound you hear. How many lines
are you going to draw for the word donkey?
Initial phoneme isolation
IPI evaluates the initial vowel recognition of words. The test consisted of four items.
For each correct answer, one point was awarded.
"Listen to the names of these drawings. Two start with the same sound and one starts
with a different sound: a-uto – a-rcade – ice cream. I want you to mark the one that
starts with a different sound. Auto and Arcade start the same, Ice cream starts with
a different sound. Mark the word that begins with a different sound: Ice cream"
Alphabet knowledge-progressive
AK-P evaluates knowledge of letter names in alphabet and lower-case order.
The test involved 28 letters. One point was awarded per correct answer.
"What is the name of the following letters?” (show example)
C-F-A-M-L
Alphabet Knowledge
Alphabet knowledge-random
AK-R evaluates knowledge of the names of the letters repeated and presented without
alphabetic order.
The test consisted of 50 letters presented in a table. One point was awarded per correct
answer.
"What is the name of the following letters? (show example)"
C-F-A-M-L
Alphabet knowledge-capital letters
AK-CL evaluates recognition of letters by saying them. The test consisted of seven
items and one point was awarded per correct answer.
The child is told that a similar task as the previous one will follow, but that this
time he/she will hear the name of the letter and must mark the correct one on the
answer sheet.
Example: "Mark the F"
Print awareness
PrA evaluates the recognition of shapes and characteristics in a text, including recognising
a letter, periods, commas, capital letters, title, cover, among others.
The test consisted of nine items, and one point was awarded per correct answer.
The child is presented with a box that may contain upper-case and lower-case letters,
signs and phrases and various instructions are given, such as:
"What’s in this picture? Mark the word."
"What’s written in this box? Mark the first line."
"Look at the drawing on the cover of a storybook. Mark the title."
Print Awareness
Emergent writing-words
EW-W evaluates the writing of monosyllabic and disyllabic words with direct syllables.
This task seeks to evaluate children’s writing stage:
- Scribbling
- Linear doodles
- Separate symbols
- Writing correct letters and pseudowords
- Writing with omissions of letters
- Correctly written words
"For this task, we are going to write the names of the images that are here" (shows
them in the booklet) “What is the name of the first image? Can you write its name?”
The evaluator tells the child that it should write the name of the images that are
on the left side of the sheet. The adult encourages writing, mentioning that form
doesn’t matter.
Emergent writing
Emergent writing-sentences
EW-S evaluates the writing of two simple sentences to evaluate children’s writing
stage:
- Scribbling
- Linear doodles
- Separate symbols
- Writing correct letters and pseudowords
- Writing with omissions of letters
- Correctly written words
"I’m going to dictate two sentences and you write them." The evaluator tells the child
to write two sentences. The adult dictates each sentence and encourages writing, mentioning
that form doesn’t matter.
Emergent writing-spelling
EE-Sp evaluates the writing of the first and last name to evaluate children’s writing
stage:
- Scribbling
- Linear doodles
- Separate symbols
- Writing correct letters and pseudowords
- Writing with omissions of letters
- Name and surname correctly written
"Could you write your first name and last name for me?" The evaluator asks the child
to write their first and last name. The adult encourages writing, mentioning that
form doesn’t matter.
Annex 2
Example of expert validation questionnaire
Question 1: In relation to internal domain phonological awareness, subtask 1.1: Phonemic Synthesis (PS), indicate your degree of agreement with the
following statements related to the adequacy and relevance of the task:
CLAIMS
(1 = strongly disagree; 2 = disagree; 3 = disagree more than agree; 4 = agree more than disagree; 5 = agree; 6 = strongly agree)
Degree of agreement
1
2
3
4
5
6
ADEQUACY (properly formulated for the recipients we are going to survey):
Subtask 1.1 is easily understood (clear, precise, unambiguous, according to the level
of information and language for preschool-age subjects).
The answer choices are appropriate for each item.
The answer choices are presented in a logical order of difficulty.
The words and pictures selected for subtask 1.1. are suitable for the age of application
of ELDT.
RELEVANCE (contributes to collect relevant research data):
Subtask 1.1. It is relevant to assess phonemic synthesis.
Subtask 1.1 contributes directly to the internal domain of phonological awareness.
Subtask 1.1 is relevant to measuring aspects of emergent literacy.
Comments and recommendations on Question 1
Reasons why it is inappropriate
Reasons why it is irrelevant
Proposals for improvement (modification, replacement, or deletion)
Annex 3
Example of final assessment of the instrument by each expert
Task
Please mark X in the corresponding column:
CLAIMS
Yes
No
The instrument contains clear and precise instructions so that respondents can answer
appropriately
The number of ELDT tasks and subtasks is excessive
Tasks and subtasks pose a risk to the respondent
(if YES, please indicate which ones below)
Tasks and subtasks the expert considers a risk to the respondent:
Number of task(s) or subtask(s)
Reasons why they could pose a risk
Proposals for improvement (modification, replacement, or deletion)
Overall assessment of the questionnaire
Excellent
Good
Regular
Deficient
Validity of questionnaire content
Remarks on the questionnaire and recommendations for improvement
Reasons why it is inappropriate
Reasons why it is irrelevant
Proposals for improvement (modification, replacement, or deletion)
