↓ Skip to main content

Modeling Floor Effects in Standardized Vocabulary Test Scores in a Sample of Low SES Hispanic Preschool Children under the Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling Framework

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, December 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (68th percentile)
  • Above-average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (56th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users
wikipedia
2 Wikipedia pages

Readers on

mendeley
64 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Modeling Floor Effects in Standardized Vocabulary Test Scores in a Sample of Low SES Hispanic Preschool Children under the Multilevel Structural Equation Modeling Framework
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, December 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02146
Pubmed ID
Authors

Leina Zhu, Jorge Gonzalez

Abstract

Researchers and practitioners often use standardized vocabulary tests such as the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-4 (PPVT-4; Dunn and Dunn, 2007) and its companion, the Expressive Vocabulary Test-2 (EVT-2; Williams, 2007), to assess English vocabulary skills as an indicator of children's school readiness. Despite their psychometric excellence in the norm sample, issues arise when standardized vocabulary tests are used to asses children from culturally, linguistically and ethnically diverse backgrounds (e.g., Spanish-speaking English language learners) or delayed in some manner. One of the biggest challenges is establishing the appropriateness of these measures with non-English or non-standard English speaking children as often they score one to two standard deviations below expected levels (e.g., Lonigan et al., 2013). This study re-examines the issues in analyzing the PPVT-4 and EVT-2 scores in a sample of 4-to-5-year-old low SES Hispanic preschool children who were part of a larger randomized clinical trial on the effects of a supplemental English shared-reading vocabulary curriculum (Pollard-Durodola et al., 2016). It was found that data exhibited strong floor effects and the presence of floor effects made it difficult to differentiate the invention group and the control group on their vocabulary growth in the intervention. A simulation study is then presented under the multilevel structural equation modeling (MSEM) framework and results revealed that in regular multilevel data analysis, ignoring floor effects in the outcome variables led to biased results in parameter estimates, standard error estimates, and significance tests. Our findings suggest caution in analyzing and interpreting scores of ethnically and culturally diverse children on standardized vocabulary tests (e.g., floor effects). It is recommended appropriate analytical methods that take into account floor effects in outcome variables should be considered.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 64 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 64 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 14%
Researcher 9 14%
Student > Doctoral Student 7 11%
Student > Bachelor 5 8%
Student > Master 5 8%
Other 6 9%
Unknown 23 36%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 9 14%
Social Sciences 9 14%
Medicine and Dentistry 4 6%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 6%
Computer Science 2 3%
Other 11 17%
Unknown 25 39%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 28 January 2024.
All research outputs
#7,708,832
of 25,248,775 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#10,923
of 34,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#140,987
of 452,214 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#230
of 530 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,248,775 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 69th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 67% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 452,214 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 68% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 530 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 56% of its contemporaries.