Early Education and Development

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: [Link]

Learning Two Languages: Dual Language Learning

Patterns, Predictors, and Outcomes

Ji-Young Choi, Shinyoung Jeon & Fattaneh Arabzadehjafari

To cite this article: Ji-Young Choi, Shinyoung Jeon & Fattaneh Arabzadehjafari (2023): Learning
Two Languages: Dual Language Learning Patterns, Predictors, and Outcomes, Early Education
and Development, DOI: 10.1080/10409289.2023.2233395

To link to this article: [Link]

© 2023 The Author(s). Published with

license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

Published online: 11 Jul 2023.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 338

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

[Link]
EARLY EDUCATION AND DEVELOPMENT
[Link]

Learning Two Languages: Dual Language Learning Patterns,

Predictors, and Outcomes
Ji-Young Choia, Shinyoung Jeonb, and Fattaneh Arabzadehjafaric
a
Department of Human Sciences, Crane Center for Early Childhood Research and Policy, The Ohio State University;
b
Department of Human Development and Family Science, University of Missouri; cDepartment of Human
Development and Family Studies, Iowa State University

ABSTRACT
This secondary analysis study examined patterns, predictors, and outcomes
of dual language learners’ (DLLs’) development in Spanish and English.
Research Findings: Latent profile analysis identified three groups of DLLs:
Balanced Bilinguals (54%), English-Dominant Bilinguals (25%), and Spanish-
Dominant Bilinguals (21%). These groups had fairly comparable Spanish skills
at Head Start (HS) entry but showed distinct learning patterns in English and
Spanish during the 2.5 years in HS and kindergarten (K), which resulted in
group differences in dual-language skills at K. When their home and class­
room environments were compared, Balanced Bilinguals had more Spanish
exposure than English-Dominant Bilinguals and more English exposure than
Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals. Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals generally had
more Spanish exposure at home and in the classroom, less English exposure
at home, and had parents with lower English proficiency. English-Dominant
Bilinguals had fewer home literacy materials in Spanish and had fewer
opportunities for Spanish exposure in their first HS classrooms. Balanced
Bilinguals presented the highest K achievement; the other two groups
showed comparable skills. Practice or Policy: This study demonstrated varia­
tions in dual-language learning among DLLs in HS and indicated the need for
tailored strategies that address the unique needs of diverse DLLs presenting
varying proficiency in their two languages.

Approximately one-third of children five years old and younger in the United States are dual language
learners (DLLs) who are acquiring a language other than English at home (Migration Policy Institute
Data Hub, n.d.). Although children are capable of learning multiple languages (Espinosa, 2015), many
DLLs living in the U.S. do not fully actualize their developmental potential to become bilinguals who
are competent in both English and their home language (Fillmore, 1991, Hoff, 2013, Paradis, 2011).
Bilingualism literature has drawn attention to the cognitive advantages of acquiring proficiency in
multiple languages (Bialystok, 2001, National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
[NASEM], 2017). Much of the relevant literature further indicates that bilinguals have additional
academic and social advantages, including a strong foundation of school readiness; the establishment
of strong cultural connections, identity, and family ties; along with the economic advantage of being
bilingual into adulthood (Espinosa, 2006, NASEM, 2017, U.S. Department of Health and Human
Services [US DHHS] & U.S. Department of Education, 2016). These bilingual advantages indicate the
importance of understanding learning environments where DLLs are most likely become competent
in both languages. In this study, we explored the patterns, contextual predictors, and developmental

CONTACT Ji-Young Choi choi.1893@[Link] Department of Human Sciences, Crane Center for Early Childhood Research
and Policy, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH
© 2023 The Author(s). Published with license by Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives License (http://
[Link]/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited, and is not altered, transformed, or built upon in any way. The terms on which this article has been published allow the
posting of the Accepted Manuscript in a repository by the author(s) or with their consent.
2 J.-Y. CHOI ET AL.

outcomes of dual-language learning over 2.5 years of Head Start (HS) and kindergarten (K). We used
a nationally representative dataset for low-income DLLs who attended HS at age 3 for two years.

Dual-Language Learning
A consensus study report from NASEM (2017) acknowledged that “It is impossible to obtain an
accurate assessment of a DLL’s developmental status and instructional needs without examining the
child’s skills in both languages” (pp. 405–406). Such a notion highlights a holistic understanding of
DLLs’ language skillsets across multiple languages they are developing. Cummins’s (1979, 1981)
threshold hypothesis similarly provides that DLLs’ developmental status and needs can be precisely
understood only when their skillsets in both languages are simultaneously considered. The hypothesis
posits that bilingual advantage in cognition is evident for DLLs evincing a high degree of competency
in both languages but not for DLLs whose competence in one language is dominant over the other.
The hypothesis further presumed that DLLs have cognitive disadvantages if they fail to achieve
proficiency in both languages, although such a concept of semilingualism has received criticism
because of the vagueness of its threshold specification for distinguishing proficiency status, its deficit
connotations for bilingual language practices, and the lack of reputable evidence supporting the
concept (MacSwan, 2000).
In early childhood education (ECE), most research attention has been focused on understanding
DLLs’ language skills in each language separately. Recently, however, there have been increasing
efforts to holistically understand DLLs’ dual-language skills, acknowledging that children learn multi­
ple languages simultaneously, rather than independently. These emerging studies have taken a person-
centered approach to identify sub-groups of individuals who share similar characteristics based on
a set of variables (Howard & Hoffman, 2018). A person-centered approach allows for holistic
examination of both English and Spanish skills; thus, this approach can help to identify the unique
variations in dual-language skillsets and development within DLL groups. Most often, DLLs’ language
skills are studied in each language separately; by contrast, using a person-centered approach helps to
extend our understanding of the developmental strengths and needs of a diverse group of DLLs with
varied dual-language skills.
Recent studies using a person-centered approach have identified subgroups of DLLs based on their
proficiency and use of English and their home language (mostly Spanish) (e.g., Kim et al., 2018, Halpin
et al., 2021, López & Foster, 2021). For example, López and Foster’s (2021) study of Spanish-English
DLLs attending HS identified four profile groups of DLLs based on their school readiness (cognition,
language, literacy, and math) assessed in both English and Spanish upon exiting the HS program. They
found that 30.63% of DLLs showed a high degree of school readiness in both languages (they were
labeled Balanced Average), 38.75% of DLLs showed a higher degree of school readiness in English than
in Spanish (English-Dominant), 17.81% of DLLs presented greater school readiness in Spanish than in
English (Spanish-Dominant), and 13.12% of DLLs presented low school readiness in both languages
(Balanced Low). It was also found that the Balanced Average group showed the most advanced school
readiness skills in both languages among the four groups.
In another study, Kim et al. (2018) identified three subgroups of DLLs based on their Spanish use
and exposure at home and in preschool classrooms (i.e., the language heard at home, the language
used at home, the language used when speaking to class peers, and the language used to teachers). The
groups were labeled Emergent Bilingual Children, who speak mostly Spanish and some English at
home and in the classroom; Bilingual Children, who speak both at home but only English in the
classroom; and Heritage Language Speakers, who speak only Spanish at home and in the classroom.
The results showed more positive learning outcomes from Bilingual children in multiple develop­
mental domains (i.e., language, literacy, math, cognitive, social-emotional, and physical) than other
DLL groups. Furthermore, compared to non-DLL peers, DLLs, especially Bilingual Children, pre­
sented more advanced cognitive, social-emotional, and physical skills over the year. Research evidence
clearly indicates that DLLs have very different proficiencies in each separate language they develop
 EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 3

(Choi, Rouse, et al., 2018, Park et al., 2018, U.S. DHHS & U.S. DoE, 2016) as well as in the level of
bilingualism (Kim et al., 2018, Halpin et al., 2021, López & Foster, 2021). This line of research raises
the important question of why and how such differences emerge.

Contextual Factors Explaining Dual-Language Development

The field of ECE has long been interested in identifying contextual factors that promote early
language development. Social interactionist theories, based largely on sociocultural theory
(Lantolf & Thorne, 2006; Vygotsky and Cole, 1978), posit that language development occurs
in culturally constructed settings (e.g., homes and schools) through interactions that motivate
individuals to communicate. In line with sociocultural theory, studies have shown that the
amount of quality language exposure is a significant predictor of children’s fluency and speed
of language acquisition (Castro et al., 2020; Espinosa, 2015; Halpin et al., 2021; Hammer et al.,
2014; Hoff et al., 2014; Thordardottir, 2019). For example, a study of school-aged bilingual
children attending French schools in Montreal showed that the amount of exposure to each
language, but not timing, was a stronger predictor of the children’s performance in each
language (Thordardottir, 2019). A consensus study report from NASEM (2017) further noted
that DLLs’ developmental differences in each language were due to language learners’ divergent
experiences.
The specific type and amount of exposure to a language that effectively supports the development
of two languages is not well understood (NASEM, 2017); however, emerging evidence points to the
importance of home and ECE classroom experiences for DLLs’ dual-language acquisition.
Environmental factors relating to DLLs’ acquisition in each language (e.g., vocabulary size) include
the relative and absolute amount of exposure to each language at home and in ECE settings, the
language used during learning activities, the type of language exposure experienced from TV,
proficiency in each language among the adults in the child’s life (e.g., mothers and teachers), parents’
attitudes toward their children’s home language learning, and parents’ beliefs/values surrounding
bilingual development (Castro et al., 2020; Halpin et al., 2021; Hindman & Wasik, 2015; Hoff et al.,
2012; Hurtado et al., 2014; Hwang et al., 2022; Li, 1999; McCabe, 2013; Partika et al., 2021;
Thordardottir, 2019; Wong et al., 2021). Research has further indicated that DLLs benefit from
consistent exposure to each language (both the home language and English) in ECE settings
(NASEM, 2017; Raikes et al., 2019), yet non-native English-speaking parents’ use of English has
limited benefit for DLLs’ English learning (Barnett et al., 2007; Hoff et al., 2014; McCabe et al., 2013).
We know little about whether and how language experiences differ among DLLs who present
different levels of bilingualism (NASEM, 2017). Given the bulk of the literature highlighting the
cognitive, academic, social, and economic benefits of bilingualism, the social contexts in which DLLs
grow up and become bilingual warrant scholarly attention. Gaining insight into the social context of
DLLs’ language acquisition has implications for DLL education.

Current Study
This study first aimed to identify subgroups of DLLs based on their Spanish and English receptive
vocabulary skills assessed at K and their gain (or growth) scores during the time between entry to HS
to K (approximately 2.5 years). We then explored learning environment factors in the home (at the
time of HS entry) and classroom (during HS) to study whether and how DLLs with different levels of
dual-language skillsets were exposed to different learning environments. Finally, we examined
whether DLLs presenting different dual-language skills show different levels of achievement at K.
DLLs’ vocabulary learning in each language is important, given its predictive power in reading
comprehension (Hemphill & Tivnan, 2008; Proctor et al., 2005). Taking advantage of a longitudinal
dataset, this study considered both K skills and gain scores during HS to K years for each language. The
skillsets that children demonstrate at K have received substantial research attention due to the national
4 J.-Y. CHOI ET AL.

emphasis on school readiness. Empirical studies have also shown that children’s K vocabulary skills
and their gains in vocabulary (or the rate of development) are significant predictors of subsequent
vocabulary skills and academic achievement (Grimm et al., 2018; Ramsook et al., 2020; Rowe et al.,
2012).
The context of this study is HS, a federally funded comprehensive early education and
family support program for children and families from low-income households. HS is an
important ECE setting for DLL education: more than one-third of all children in HS are from
homes where a language other than English is spoken (US DHHS, Administration for
Children and Families, Office of Planning Research and Evaluation [ACF OPRE], n.d.a).
Given its emphasis on cultural and linguistic competency, HS is regarded as a model program
for DLL education (McNamara, 2016). DLLs in the U.S. are disproportionately from low-
income households (Child Trend, n.d.; Migration Policy Institute Data Hub, n.d.); this fact
further underscores the importance of understanding DLLs’ development within the HS
context.
Perhaps one of the main reasons for the scarcity of literature on dual-language development is
the dearth of data regarding DLLs’ home language skills. Traditionally, U.S. ECE research has
focused on DLLs’ English acquisition, and much less attention has been paid to their home
language acquisition. This approach often yields only partial information about DLLs’ language
development. Fortunately, the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey 2009 (Child and
Family Data Archive, n.d.; Malone et al., 2013) provides data on nationally representative Spanish-
English DLLs’ vocabulary skills in both English and Spanish during the 2.5 years between entry
into HS and K. This unique feature made it possible to study the longitudinal pattern of dual-
language development.
Using FACES 2009 data, we studied DLLs who had two years of HS participation starting at the age
of three. This study set out to investigate the following research questions (RQs):

(1) What patterns of dual-language learning do Spanish-English DLLs present during the 2.5 years
between HS and K?
(2) How do home and classroom language exposure differ among DLLs presenting different dual-
language learning patterns?
(3) Do K academic skills differ among DLLs presenting different dual-language learning patterns?

Methods
Study Participants
This study used the Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey 2009 (FACES, n.d.; US DHHS,
ACF, OPRE, n.d.b). This survey is a longitudinal dataset on nationally representative children who
entered HS in 2009. FACES 2009 contains data on both English and Spanish skills of low-income
Spanish-English DLLs during 2.5 years between entry into HS and K and thus provides a unique
resource for studying the longitudinal patterns of dual-language development.
Our study included 232 Spanish-English DLLs from 54 HS centers who attended HS for the first
time at age three in 2009. The children were identified as Spanish-English DLLs if their parents
reported that Spanish is their primary language when speaking to their children. Children were
excluded from this study if they had no child assessment data at K, most often due to early program
exit (n = 191); were not applicable to have Spanish assessments upon entry into HS (n = 6); or had
identified speech or language impairment during their years in HS (n = 3) or K (n = 2). A kindergarten
longitudinal sampling weight, “WESTATWT,” was applied across all analyses. The findings of the
current study are, therefore, nationally representative of DLLs who entered HS in the fall of 2009 at the
age of three, stayed in HS for two years and then went to K in 2012 (FACES/AIAN FACES Helpdesk,
personal communication, February 14, 2022). All children in our sample had two years of HS
 EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 5

experience, and their data were collected four times over 2.5 years, including HS entry (fall 2009),
HS year 1 (spring 2010), HS year 2 (spring 2011), and K (spring 2012).

Measures
English and Spanish Language Skills
Children’s receptive vocabulary skills in English and Spanish were assessed using the Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-4; Dunn & Dunn, 2007) and the Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes
Peabody (TVIP; Dunn et al., 1986), respectively. When administering the PPVT and TVIP,
children are verbally instructed to point to the picture that best reflects the word that the assessor
utters. The reliability of the PPVT and TVIP was over .91 and .89, respectively, for the total
FACES sample across all data collection points (Malone et al., 2013). In the main analysis, we used
raw scores obtained at K and gain scores over 2.5 years between HS entry to K (estimated by
subtracting scores at HS entry from K scores) for each language. Thus, our analytical approach
considered children’s skill levels at K and their longitudinal gains in vocabulary development
across two languages.

Home Language Environment

Parents reported their home language environment at the time of their child’s entry to HS at age three.
This study focused on five aspects of the home language environments relating to the quality and
quantity of each language exposure: 1) parents’ primary language use when reading books to
children; 2) the presence of home literacy materials in each language; 3) the parents’ proficiency in
each language; 4) the extent to which parents value their children’s English or Spanish learning; and 5)
the language spoken in the TV programs that the children watch. All the variables examined in this
study are listed in Table 3.

Primary Language Use in Reading. Parents reported the primary language they use when reading
books to children by selecting one of three mutually exclusive responses: English, Spanish, or both
languages equally. We examined each response separately using the yes vs. no indicator (1 = yes; 0 =
no).

Home Literacy Materials. Parents reported whether their child had the following four materials in
English or Spanish at home: (a) children’s comic books or magazines; (b) children’s computer
programs or games; (c) adult books or magazines; and (d) CDs or tapes with singing. The FACES
team created a total number of material types by each language. The composite score ranged between 0
(none) to 4 (all) for each language.
In addition, parents reported the number of children’s books at home in any language. The original
variable ranged from 0 to 100. Because the variable was positively skewed, we truncated the variable so
that it ranged from 0 (no books) to 50 (indicating more than 50 books).
Last, we used data on the percentage of children’s books in Spanish at home. This FACES-created
variable indicates the relative number of children’s books in Spanish over in English at home.

Parent Language Proficiency. Parents reported their proficiencies in reading, understanding, and
speaking in English and Spanish using a 4-point Likert-type scale from 0 (not at all) to 3 (very well).
For Spanish, the data distribution of parent proficiency was highly skewed toward “very well” (64–
65%); thus, these variables were re-coded into the following dichotomous variables: 1 (very well) or 0
(not very well). For parents’ English proficiency, we used the original Likert-type scale, including 0
(not at all), 1 (not well), 2 (well), and 3 (very well) to capture variations in the sample.

Parental Values. Parents reported how important it was for their children to communicate in
English, improve their English skills, or communicate in their primary language (Spanish). Each
6 J.-Y. CHOI ET AL.

variable was rated using a 4-point Likert-type scale from 0 (not at all) to 3 (essential). Because data
distribution was highly negatively skewed, a dichotomous variable indicating 0 (not essential) and 1
(essential) was created for each variable.

The Language Spoken in TV Programs. Parents reported the language spoken in the TV shows their
children watched. Parents reported 1 = yes or 0 = no for English and Spanish separately. These
mutually inclusive responses were examined separately.

Classroom Language Environment

Teachers reported on their classroom environment in the spring of each academic year. All children in
our study had two years of HS participation, and each year’s data were analyzed separately.

Teacher Proficiency in Spanish. Teachers reported their Spanish understanding and speaking profi­
ciency using a 4-point Likert-type scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 4 (very well).

Spanish Instruction. Teachers reported whether Spanish was used for classroom instruction (1 = yes;
0 = no).

Kindergarten Achievement
Conceptual, Expressive Vocabulary. EOWPVT Spanish-Bilingual Edition (EOWPVT-SBE; Brownell,
2001) was used to assess conceptual expressive vocabulary skills of children whose parents spoke
Spanish to children at home (All children included in this study). Children were instructed to name
objects, actions, and concepts in pictures in Spanish and English. A correct response in either language
meant that the item was scored as “correct.” We used a bilingual-normed standard score (Std). The
assessment’s internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) was .90 at K.

Math. We used IRT-based math scores estimated based on (a) the Applied Problems Subscale of the
Woodcock – Johnson Tests of Achievement (AP WJ – III; Woodcock et al., 2001), which assesses
numbers and operations, and (b) the math assessment from the Early Childhood Longitudinal Study,
Birth Cohort (ECLS-B; Snow et al., 2007; U.S. Department of Education, 2002), which assesses
knowledge of numbers and numeric operations such as addition and subtraction, size, pattern, and
shape, as well as mathematical word problem-solving skills. The IRT score represents the number of
items children would have correctly answered if both AP WJ-III and ECLS-B math assessments were
given. The IRT score reflects a child’s true ability given “the ability estimate, along with the difficulty of
the item, the discrimination power of the item, and the probability of guessing correctly” (Malone
et al., 2013, p. 169). Even children who had not received all items due to basal or ceiling rules had IRT
scores that presented their true ability. The internal reliability of the assessment was .95 at K.

Literacy. We used the IRT-based scores estimated based on WJ Letter-Word (Woodcock et al., 2001)
and ECLS-B Letter-Sounds tasks to measure knowledge of letters, sounds, and words. The IRT scores
represent the number of items children would have correctly answered if both WJ Letter-Word and
ECLS-B Letter-Sound responses were given. The internal reliability of the assessment was .96 at K.

Analysis
Research Question 1
Latent profile analysis (LPA) was employed using Mplus 8 to identify the profile patterns of
dual-language development (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2014; Nylund et al., 2007). Four variables
were used in the analytical model: PPVT (English) scores at K, the PPVT gain scores between
HS entry and K, the TVIP (Spanish) scores at K, and the TVIP gain scores between entry into
HS and K. Separate LPA models were run with one to four profiles. The criteria used to
 EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 7

determine the best model were: (a) Akaike Information Criterion (AIC; Bozdogan, 1987); (b)
Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC; Schwarz, 1978); (c) Vuong – Lo–Mendell – Rubin
likelihood ratio test (VLMR-LRT; Vuong, 1989); (d) entropy (Jedidi et al., 1993); and (e)
that a reasonable proportion of children (no less than 1% of the sample) were assigned to each
profile (Jung & Wickrama, 2008). To account for the nesting issue (i.e., that some children
were enrolled in the same HS center), we used center IDs in the CLUSTER command in
Mplus. Missing data were handled by full information maximum likelihood estimation.
A sampling weight, “WESTATWT,” was applied.

Research Question 2
To explore whether children’s home and classroom environments differ across DLL profile
subgroups, we ran a series of logistic regressions (when examining dichotomous variables) or
simple linear regression (when examining continuous variables) using Stata 14. Each language
environment was treated as an outcome variable, and dummy-coded DLL groups were
included as independent variables. To test group differences across all DLL subgroups, we
ran each model repeatedly with different DLL subgroups as a reference group. Across all
models, we used “vce(cluster)” to adjust the standard error by allowing intragroup correlation
at the HS center level. Given that this study is exploratory in nature, we did not adjust the
p-value for multiple comparisons (Moran, 2003; Saville, 1990). To handle missing data, 50
imputed datasets were created using multiple imputations (MI). “WESTATWT” was applied as
a sampling weight.

Research Question 3
To test whether children’s K achievement differed across the different DLL profile subgroups,
we ran a series of simple linear regressions using Stata 14. Each K achievement was treated as an
outcome variable. Dummy-coded DLL groups were included as independent variables. Each
model was run twice against a different reference group to test differences across all DLL profile
subgroups. Throughout all analyses, “vce(cluster)” was used to adjust standard errors by
accounting for intragroup correlation at the HS center. The same imputed dataset used for
RQ 2 was used for the analytical models examining RQ 3. “WESTATWT” was applied as
a sampling weight.

Results
The Profile Patterns of Dual-Language Development
Table 1 summarizes model fit comparisons across the one- to four-profile models. AIC and BIC
values were lower for the models with a greater number of profiles, indicating that the n +1 model
fits the data better than the n-model (Kline, 2016). All models showed an entropy value over .80,
which is acceptable (Lubke & Muthén, 2007). Both LMR and VLMR were statistically significant at
p < .01 for the three-profile model, indicating that the three-profile model fits the data better than
the two-profile model, and the model fit does not improve by adding one more profile (i.e., four-
profile model) to the three-profile model (Nylund et al., 2007). The three-profile model included
approximately 21%, 25%, and 54% of children in each respective profile group. Based on these
model fit indices, we concluded that the three-profile model best fits the data. The three profile
groups were labeled as Balanced Bilinguals, English-Dominant Bilinguals, and Spanish-Dominant
Bilinguals based on their significant characteristics (i.e., the language of dominance at K, the
language that the group developed more over the 2.5 years). All groups were similar in that their
average standardized (std) scores in Spanish (TVIP) were higher than in English (PPVT) upon
entry to HS (Table 2).
8 J.-Y. CHOI ET AL.

Table 1. Model fit comparisons among 1-class to 4-class models.

1 2 3 4
Loglikelihood −4171.77 −4054.77 −4001.85 −3975.77
# of parameters 8 13 18 23
AIC 8359.54 8135.53 8039.70 7997.55
Δ AIC −224.01 −95.83 −42.15
BIC 8387.99 8181.77 8103.72 8079.35
Δ BIC −206.22 −78.05 −24.37
Adjusted BIC 8362.63 8140.56 8046.66 8006.44
Δ Adj. BIC −222.07 −93.90 −40.22
Entropy - .87 .83 .82
VLMR p-value - <.01 <.01 .18
LMR p-value - <.01 <.01 .19
% Profile 1 100% 27.03% 25.48% 14.29%
% Profile 2 72.97% 20.85% 23.94%
% Profile 3 53.67% 9.65%
% Profile 4 52.12%
AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC = Bayesian information criterion; ABIC =
sample size adjusted BIC; VLMR = Vuong-Lo-Mendell-Rubin likelihood ratio
test; LMR = Lo-Mendell-Rubin adjusted likelihood ratio test.

Table 2. Descriptive statistics of receptive vocabulary skills in English and Spanish (N = 232).
Balanced Spanish-Dominant English-Dominant
Total Bilinguals (54%) Bilinguals (21%) Bilinguals (25%)
Vocabulary skills # M SD M SD M SD M SD
English Receptive vocabulary skills (PPVT)
HS entry Standard score 196 61.29 18.08 64.40 17.57 a 49.78 15.61 63.72 17.67 a
HS entry Raw scores 196 14.46 12.52 16.51 12.96 a 7.11 7.53 15.87 12.77 a
K Standard score 231 82.91 10.74 89.16 7.57 a 70.36 7.71 79.94 8.18 b
K Raw scores 231 73.42 19.00 85.27 12.01 a 48.99 11.20 68.31 14.43 b
Raw gain scores (HS entry – K) 196 60.02 16.93 69.57 13.21 a 41.94 9.82 54.22 13.99 b
Spanish Receptive vocabulary skills (TVIP)
HS entry Standard score 207 88.17 10.38 89.32 10.92 a 88.63 8.60 85.02 10.06 b
HS entry Raw scores 211 8.82 7.07 10.07 7.28 a 7.91 6.04 6.77 6.94 b
K Standard score 217 89.82 14.58 95.59 9.93 a 94.93 9.16 67.80 8.40 b
K Raw scores 231 34.69 14.07 41.76 8.32 a 40.07 8.07 15.88 9.39 b
Raw gain scores (HS entry – K) 210 26.10 12.73 31.49 8.16 a 32.28 7.52 8.71 8.18 b
Unimputed data were used. To compare group differences in the children’s vocabulary skills, a series of simple regression was run
with an analytical weight applied (WESTATWT) as a post hoc analysis. All significant group differences at p < .05 were denoted as a,
b, and c, where the same alphabetic value reflects no group difference.

To better understand how the three groups of DLLs differ in their language skillsets at HS entry, K,
and the gain scores (between HS entry and K), a series of simple regressions were performed with an
analytical weight applied (WESTATWT) as post hoc analyses. All three groups were compared by
changing the reference group. The group differences in English and Spanish skills are described below
and presented in Table 2. Figure 1 visually presents mean scores of children’s English and Spanish
receptive vocabulary skills presented in Table 2.

Balanced Bilinguals
The Balanced Bilingual group comprised approximately 54% of the children in the sample. As shown
in Table 2, average Balanced Bilinguals had PPVT scores comparable to those of the English-
Dominant group at HS entry (M Std score = 64.40) but showed the highest gain scores between HS
entry and K (M gain score = 69.57) and eventually presented the highest skills at K (M Std score = 89.16)
among the three groups. Balanced Bilinguals’ TVIP scores were comparable to those of Spanish-
Dominant Bilinguals across all three-time points: at entry into HS (M Std score = 89.32), at K (M Std score
= 95.59), and the gains scores from HS entry to K (M gain score = 31.49).
 EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 9

Figure 1. Comparison of English (PPVT) and Spanish (TVIP) receptive vocabulary skills (raw scores) across three groups of dual
language learners (DLLs). Note. The graph is to visually present mean scores of children’s English and Spanish receptive vocabulary
skills presented in Table 2.

Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals
The Spanish-Dominant group comprised approximately 21% of the children in the sample. As shown in
Table 2, the average Spanish-Dominant group had the lowest PPVT scores at HS entry (M Std score = 49.78)
and K (M Std score = 70.36) as well as the lowest gain scores from HS entry to K (M gain score = 41.94). Spanish-
Dominant Bilinguals had TVIP scores comparable to those of English-Dominant Bilinguals at HS entry (M
Std score = 88.63) but had higher gains (M gain score = 32.28) and showed higher skills at K (M Std score = 94.93).

English-Dominant Bilinguals
The English-Dominant group comprised approximately 25% of the children in the sample. As
shown in Table 2, the English-Dominant group’s PPVT scores were comparable to those of
Bilinguals at HS entry (M Std score = 63.72), but they showed lower gains (M raw gain score = 54.22)
and lower scores at K (M Std score = 79.94) than Balanced Bilinguals. The English-Dominant group
showed TVIP scores comparable to those of the Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals at HS entry (M Std
score = 85.02) but achieved the lowest gains (M gain score = 8.71) and K achievement (M Std score =
67.80) in TVIP among the three groups.

Group Differences in Home Language Environment

Table 3 presents descriptive statistics of the language environments at home (when entering HS) and
in the classroom (during HS years). Table 4 shows whether and how the three groups had statistically
different language environments. All parents of DLLs in our sample primarily spoke Spanish to their
children.

Primary Language Use in Reading

English. Approximately 4.48% of Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals were read to primarily in English,
a significantly lower percentage than that of English-Dominant Bilinguals (26.67%; OR ref. English-
Dominant = .13; p < .05) and Balanced Bilinguals (26.59%; OR ref. Spanish-Dominant = 7.72; p ≤ .01).
Balanced Bilinguals and English-Dominant Bilinguals did not differ in the rate.

Spanish. Over 87% of the Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals were read to primarily in Spanish at home,
a higher percentage than that of the English-Dominant Bilinguals (47.78%; OR ref. English-Dominant = 7.36;
10 J.-Y. CHOI ET AL.

Table 3. Descriptive statistics of child/family characteristics, home language experiences, classroom characteristics, and kindergarten
outcomes.
Spanish- English-
Balanced Dominant DLLs Dominant
Total Bilinguals (54%) (21%) DLLs (25%)
Mean/
Characteristics # Mean/% SD Mean/% SD Mean/% SD % SD
Demographics
Child sex (1=male) 232 45.08% 43.30% 39.46% 53.19%
Child race/ethnicity (1=Hispanic/Latino) 231 100% 100% 100% 100%
Child country of birth (1= U.S.) 231 97.50% 99% 92% 98%
Household poverty (1= yes) 232 74.67% 71.59% 87.26% 71.09%
Household size 232 4.97 1.69 4.91 1.58 5.24 1.90 4.87 1.74
Number of children in the household 232 2.37 .99 2.40 1.02 2.49 .99 2.23 .91
Maternal education (1=high school or 229 33.50% 35.76% 24.48% 36.16%
higher)
Parents born outside the US (1= yes) 229 88.09% 89.03% 88.77% 85.59%
Language often spoken to the child 232 100% 100% 100% 100%
(1=non-English)
Parents’ first language (1= Spanish) 231 98.62% 98.15% 100% 98.49%
Home Language experience
Parent language used in reading
English (1= yes) 232 22.08% 26.59% 4.48% 26.67%
Spanish (1= yes) 232 61.33% 58.03% 87.07% 47.78%
Both languages equally (1= yes) 232 16.42% 15.38% 8.45% 24.87%
Home literacy materials
# of material types in English 230 2.13 1.28 2.17 1.21 1.91 1.40 2.21 1.32
# of material types in Spanish 228 2.22 1.01 2.32 0.97 2.34 1.11 1.92 0.94
# of children’s books 232 14.30 12.57 15.21 13.69 10.70 9.25 15.29 12.08
% of children’s books in Spanish 222 47.26 31.59 45.35 30.10 65.08 29.24 37.93 31.42
Parent language proficiency
Spanish proficiency (1= yes to “very well”)
Read 228 61.44% 67.06% 56.58% 54.54%
Understand 228 62.08% 67.51% 53.88% 58.09%
Speak 228 62.15% 69.65% 49.87% 57.06%
English proficiency (0 = not at all ~ 3= very well)
Understand 231 1.18 0.80 1.22 0.83 0.91 0.65 1.30 0.82
Speak 231 1.05 0.80 1.10 0.80 0.76 0.64 1.16 0.85
Read 231 1.02 0.88 1.07 0.87 0.72 0.81 1.16 0.92
Parent value (importance that . . .)
Child communicates in English (1= 232 29.85% 36.28% 22.72% 22.22%
essential)
Child improves English (1= essential) 230 27.51% 33.91% 18.87% 21.42%
Child communicates in Spanish 231 28.19% 31.48% 23.78% 24.84%
(1=essential)
Language spoken on TV child watches
English (1=yes) 232 84.84% 89.35% 67.57% 89.16%
Spanish (1=yes) 232 53.36% 56.30% 60.10% 41.95%
Classroom characteristics
Year 1
Teacher Spanish proficiency (1= not at all ~ 4=very well)
Speak 230 2.58 1.38 2.60 1.37 2.97 1.35 2.20 1.35
Understand 230 2.63 1.39 2.68 1.39 2.97 1.34 2.24 1.35
Spanish is used for instruction (1=yes) 229 71.07% 70.52% 84.49% 61.20%
Year 2
Teacher Spanish proficiency (1= not at all ~ 4=very well)
Speak 223 1.43 1.02 1.37 0.94 1.54 1.14 1.47 1.09
Understand 223 1.44 1.02 1.37 0.94 1.56 1.14 1.47 1.09
Spanish is used for instruction (1=yes) 221 62.99% 78.34% 59.81% 57.07%
Kindergarten outcomes
Conceptual expressive language (EOWPVT) 231 102.22 16.19 108.54 14.05 94.17 12.61 95.49 17.49
Math (IRT based on WJ and ECLS-B) 232 36.75 6.92 39.45 5.42 33.01 8.29 34.14 6.15
Literacy (IRT based on WJ and ECLS-B) 220 27.48 7.53 29.42 6.87 24.87 8.43 25.22 7.06
Unimputed data were used. A sampling weight was applied (WESTATWT). SD-DLL = Spanish-dominant DLL; ED-DLL = English-
dominant DLL.
Table 4. Language group differences in home and classroom language environment.
Balanced bilinguals vs. English-Dominant Balanced bilinguals vs. Spanish-Dominant Spanish-Dominant DLL vs. English-
DLL (ref.) DLL (ref.) Dominant DLL (ref.)
b OR p-value 95% CI b OR p-value 95% CI b OR p-value 95% CI
Home Language experience
Parent language use in reading
English 0.00 1.00 -0.82 0.81 2.04 7.72 ** 0.61 3.48 -2.05 0.13 * -3.65 -0.45
Spanish 0.41 1.51 -0.42 1.24 -1.58 0.21 *** -2.39 -0.78 -2.00 7.36 *** -3.09 -0.90
Both languages equally -0.60 0.55 -1.95 0.75 0.68 1.97 -0.39 1.75 1.28 0.28 -0.16 2.71
Home literacy materials
# of material types in English -0.05 -0.41 0.31 0.25 -0.26 0.75 -0.29 -0.80 0.21
# of material types in Spanish 0.38 * 0.05 0.71 -0.04 -0.43 0.35 0.42 * 0.04 0.80
% of children’s books in Spanish 7.29 -3.05 17.63 -.19.77 *** -30.82 -8.72 27.07 *** 12.99 41.14
# of children’s books -.80 -4.09 3.93 4.51 * .52 8.50 -4.59 * -8.51 -.67
Parent language proficiency
Parent Spanish proficiency (1= very well; 0 = not very well)
Understand 0.41 1.51 -0.27 1.09 0.57 1.76 -0.24 1.37 -0.16 0.85 -1.12 0.81
Speak 0.53 1.71 -0.21 1.28 0.82 2.28 -0.04 1.68 -0.29 0.75 -1.25 0.68
Read 0.50 1.66 -0.24 1.25 0.43 1.53 -0.30 1.15 0.08 1.08 -0.90 1.06
Parent English proficiency (0 = not at all ~ 3= very well)
Understand -0.08 -0.29 0.14 0.31 ** 0.08 0.55 -0.39 ** -0.68 -0.10
Speak -0.05 -0.26 0.15 0.35 *** 0.14 0.55 -0.40 ** -0.66 -0.15
Read -0.09 -0.35 0.17 0.35 * 0.05 0.64 -0.44 * -0.80 -0.08
Parent value (importance that child . . .)
improves English skills (1= essential) 0.62 1.85 -0.22 1.45 0.77 2.17 * 0.04 1.51 -0.16 0.85 -1.11 0.79
communicates in English (1= essential) 0.69 1.99 -0.05 1.43 0.66 1.94 -0.02 1.34 0.03 1.03 -0.92 0.98
communicates in Spanish (1= essential) .33 1.39 .76 2.53 .39 1.42 .68 3.17 -.06 .94 .44 2.03
Language spoken on TV child watches
English (1=Yes) 0.02 1.02 -1.37 1.41 1.39 4.03 ** 0.38 2.41 -1.37 0.25 * -2.59 -0.16
Spanish (1=Yes) 0.58 1.78 -0.19 1.35 -0.16 0.86 -1.08 0.76 0.73 2.08 -0.34 1.81
Classroom characteristics
Year 1
Teacher Spanish proficiency

Speak 0.40 * 0.00 0.81 -0.37 -0.99 0.25 0.78 * 0.08 1.47
Understand 0.43 * 0.01 0.85 -0.29 -0.92 0.34 0.72 * 0.03 1.42
Spanish used for instruction (1= yes) 0.44 1.55 -0.28 1.15 -0.82 0.44 -1.89 0.25 1.25 3.50 * 0.28 2.23
Year 2
Teacher Spanish proficiency
EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT

Speak -0.09 -0.39 0.22 -0.17 -0.60 0.25 0.08 -0.34 0.50
Understand -0.09 -0.39 0.22 -0.19 -0.62 0.24 0.10 -0.33 0.52
Spanish use for instruction (1= yes) 1.14 -0.74 1.01 -0.84 0.43 -2.14 0.46 0.97 2.65 -0.29 2.24
0.13
11

Imputed data were used. Group comparisons were performed for each home and classroom factor separately. When simple logistic regression was performed, Odd Ratio (OR) was reported.
A sampling weight was applied (WESTATWT). * p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
12 J.-Y. CHOI ET AL.

p ≤ .001) and Balanced Bilinguals (58.03%; OR ref. Spanish-Dominant = .21; p ≤ .001). Balanced Bilinguals and
English-Dominant Bilinguals did not differ in the rate.

English and Spanish Equally. No statistically significant difference was found in the percentage of
children who were read to equally in Spanish and English among the three groups (M Range = 8%
[Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals] to 25% [English-Dominant Bilinguals]).

Home Literacy Materials

Literacy Materials in English. No group difference was found in the number of different types of
literacy materials in English at home (M Range = 1.91 [Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals] to 2.21 [English-
Dominant Bilinguals]).

Literacy Materials in Spanish. The English-Dominant Bilinguals had approximately two different
types of home literacy material in Spanish (M = 1.92; SD = .94), fewer than the Spanish-Dominant
Bilinguals (b = −.42; p < .05) and Balanced Bilinguals (b = −.38; p < .05) had.

Percentage of Children’s Books in Spanish. On average, less than 50% of children’s books at home
were in Spanish (M = 47.26%; SD = 31.59). Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals had relatively more books in
Spanish over English at home (M = 65.08%; SD = 29.24) than Balanced Bilinguals (b = 19.77; p ≤ .001)
and English-Dominant Bilinguals (b = 27.07; p ≤ .001).

A Total Number of Children’s Books. On average, children had about 14 books at home (M = 14.30;
SD = 12.57). Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals had fewer books (M = 10.70; SD = 9.25) than Balanced
Bilinguals (b = −4.51; p ≤ .05) and English-Dominant Bilinguals (b = −4.59; p ≤ .05).

Parent Language Proficiency

Spanish. About 62% of parents reported they read, understand, or speak Spanish “very well.” The
parents’ Spanish proficiency levels did not differ across the three groups.

English. On average, parents of Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals reported their English profi­

ciency in comprehension (or understanding) (M = .91; SD = .65), speaking (M = .76; SD = .64),
and reading (M = .72; SD = .81) to be “not well” (below 1). Parents of Spanish-Dominant
Bilinguals rated their comprehension (understanding) lower than did the parents of Balanced
Bilinguals (b = −.31; p ≤ .01) and the English-Dominant group (b = −.39; p ≤ .01). Their rates in
speaking proficiency were also lower than those of the parents of Balanced Bilinguals
(b = −.35; p ≤ .001) and English-Dominant Bilinguals (b = −.40; p ≤ .01). Similarly, their rates
in reading proficiency were lower than those of the parents of Balanced Bilinguals (b = −.35;
p < .05) and English-Dominant Bilinguals (b = −.44; p < .05). No difference in English profi­
ciencies was reported between parents of English-Dominant Bilinguals and Balanced
Bilinguals.

Parental Values
Nearly 34% of the parents of Balanced Bilinguals reported that their children’s English improvement
was “essential ( = 1).” This percentage was about two times higher than the Spanish-Dominant
Bilinguals’ parent reports (18.87%; b = .77; OR ref. Spanish-Dominant = 2.17; p < .05). When parents
asked whether it was important for their children to communicate in English or Spanish, no group
difference was found.

The Language Used on TV

Spanish. No group differences were found in whether children watched TV in Spanish.
 EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 13

English. About 68% of Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals watched TV in English. This rate was lower than
that for the Balanced Bilinguals (89.35%; b = 1.39; OR ref. Spanish-Dominant = 4.03; p ≤ .01) and English-
Dominant DLLs (89.16%; b = −1.37; OR ref. English-Dominant = .25; p < .05).
When performing post hoc analyses, there was no group difference in time spent watching TV
(M = 1.10 hours/day; SD = .76).

Group Differences and Classroom Language Environment

Teachers’ Spanish Proficiency
Year 1. On average, English-Dominant Bilinguals had teachers who rated their Spanish-speaking
proficiency as “not well” ( = 2) (M = 2.20; SD = 1.35) in their first HS year. This rating was lower than
those for teachers of Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals (b = −.78; p < .05) and Balanced Bilinguals
(b = −.40; p < .05). Similarly, teachers of the English-Dominant group rated their Spanish comprehen­
sion (understanding) to be “not well” ( = 2) (M = 2.24; SD = 1.35), lower than teachers of Spanish-
Dominant Bilinguals (b = −.72; p < .05) and Balanced Bilinguals (b = −.43; p < .05). Teachers of the
Spanish-Dominant group and Balanced Bilinguals did not report different levels of Spanish
proficiency.

Year 2. No difference was found in teachers’ ratings of their Spanish proficiency among the three
DLL groups.

Spanish Use for Instruction

Year 1. In the first year of HS, nearly 85% of Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals were in classrooms where
Spanish was used for instruction. This percentage was higher than that of English-Dominant
Bilinguals (61.20%; b = 1.25; OR ref. English-Dominant = 3.50; p < .05) but not different from that of
Balanced Bilinguals (70.52%; p > .05). No group differences were found between English-Dominant
Bilinguals and Balanced Bilinguals.

Year 2. About 63% of DLLs in our sample were in classrooms where Spanish was used for instruction
in their second year of HS. No DLL group difference was found in the percentage of children in
classrooms where Spanish was used for instruction in their second year of HS.

Kindergarten Achievement
Conceptual Expressive Vocabulary Skills
As shown in Table 5, Balanced Bilinguals presented higher conceptual, expressive vocabulary skills at
K than English-Dominant Bilinguals (β = .81; p ≤ .001) and Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals (β = .90;
p ≤ .001). English-Dominant Bilinguals and Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals did not differ in their
conceptual expressive vocabulary skills assessed in both languages at K (β = −.09; p > .05).

Table 5. Language group differences in kindergarten outcomes (N = 232).

Conceptual Expressive Vocabulary Math Literacy
β SE β SE β SE
Ref. Balanced bilinguals
English-dominant DLLs −0.81*** 0.16 −0.72*** 0.13 −0.53** 0.16
Spanish-dominant DLLs −0.90*** 0.20 −0.87*** 0.18 −0.66*** 0.18
Intercept 0.33*** 0.10 0.34*** 0.07 0.26** 0.08
Ref. English-dominant DLLs
Spanish-dominant DLLs −0.09 0.23 −0.15 0.21 −0.13 0.22
Intercept −0.48** 0.16 −0.38*** 0.10 −0.27 0.14
Imputed data were used. All outcome variables were z-scored (M = 0; SD = 1). A sampling weight was applied (WESTATWT).
14 J.-Y. CHOI ET AL.

Math
As shown in Table 5, Balanced Bilinguals demonstrated higher math skills at K compared to English-
Dominant Bilinguals (β = .72; p ≤ .01) and Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals (β = .87; p ≤ .001). No differ­
ence was found between English-Dominant Bilinguals and Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals in their
K math skills assessed in English (β = −.15; p > .05).

Literacy
As shown in Table 5, Bilinguals had higher literacy skills at K than English-Dominant Bilinguals (β
= .53; p ≤ .01) and Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals (β = .66; p ≤ .001). English-Dominant Bilinguals and
Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals did not differ in their literacy skills assessed in English at K (β = −.13;
p > .05).

Discussion
Using FACES 2009, this study identified three groups of Spanish-English DLLs who showed different
levels of K skills in English (PPVT) and Spanish (TVIP) and their gain scores during the 2.5 years in
HS and K. The three groups were given the following labels: Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals, English-
Dominant Bilinguals, and Balanced Bilinguals.

Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals
Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals presented gains scores and K achievement in Spanish comparable to
those of Balanced Bilinguals and showed the lowest gains and the lowest K skills in English among the
three groups. Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals are disadvantaged in the traditional and most common
educational settings in the U.S., where instruction and interactions are predominantly in English.
Indeed, research points to the importance of early English acquisition for DLLs’ later academic
achievement (Choi, Jeon, et al., 2018; Choi, Rouse, et al., 2018; Han, 2012; Halle et al., 2012), indicating
that DLLs may suffer disadvantages when their learning environment does not match their primary
language.
However, it should be noted that the field acknowledges the benefit of a strong home
language foundation for DLLs. Beyond the social and economic advantages of developing and
maintaining a home language, strong home language skills benefit second language acquisition
(Cummins, 1981; NASEM, 2017). Cummins’ linguistic interdependence hypothesis posits that
a common underlying proficiency (or language-independent knowledge) facilitates the transfer
of knowledge across languages, and thus, having a strong home language skill aids in the
acquisition of a second language. Such a premise indicates that the Spanish-Dominant group,
whose home language skills at K were comparable to those of monolingual Spanish speakers (on
which the TVIP was normed), will acquire English more efficiently in the future using their
home language skills as a foundation. When home language is continuously supported, the
Spanish-Dominant group may eventually become balanced bilinguals as they receive more
exposure to English in formal schooling. In this sense, Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals should be
considered a group of young learners with developmental potential to excel, rather than an at-
risk group for development. However, given the concern over home language loss often
observed from DLLs in the U.S. school system (Oller & Eilers, 2002), systematic efforts
supporting continuous home language development should be paralleled with purposeful
English support even for DLLs who already achieved solid home language skills during early
years.
It is worth noting that Spanish-Dominant DLLs’ K achievement did not differ from that of
English-Dominant Bilinguals. When interpreting these findings, it is important to consider that
Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals had significantly lower English proficiency than English-
Dominant Bilinguals at K, and their K math and literacy achievement were assessed in the
 EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 15

English version of the assessment. This points to the possibility that our Spanish-Dominant
Bilinguals would have performed better if their academic skills had been assessed conceptually
in both languages or in their dominant language (Spanish). Perhaps Spanish-Dominant
Bilinguals eventually outperform their English-Dominant DLL peers in academics as they
become more fluent in English through schooling. This speculation warrants further
investigation.

English-Dominant Bilinguals
On average, English-Dominant Bilinguals did not show a pattern of stagnation or decline in home
language development over the 2.5 years in HS and K. This may reflect the unique characteristics of
the study setting: HS has a long history of committing to providing “developmentally, culturally, and
linguistically appropriate” services (US HHS, ACF, Office of Head Start, 2016). However, English-
Dominant Bilinguals gained the least Spanish skills among the three groups. English-Dominant
Bilinguals were the only group whose TVIP standard scores were lower at K than at HS entry,
indicating that English-Dominant Bilinguals’ development in Spanish was slower relative to their
peers of similar age. Our findings further showed that although English-Dominant Bilinguals became
more proficient in English over Spanish at K, their gain in English was lower than that of Balanced
Bilinguals.
Our English-Dominant Bilinguals are somewhat comparable to López and Foster’s (2021)
Balanced Low group, which presented low school readiness in both languages. As discussed
earlier, English-Dominant Bilinguals performed similarly to Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals in
math and literacy assessed in English, even though their K PPVT scores were significantly
higher. These observations suggest that DLLs whose developmental characteristics resemble
those of our English-Dominant Bilinguals may need the most support in their development. It
is interesting that English-Dominant Bilinguals’ initial English skills were comparable to those
of Balanced Bilinguals, and their Spanish skills were comparable to those of Spanish-Dominant
Bilinguals. Perhaps, this indicates that English-Dominant Bilinguals’ lower functioning in both
languages may be attributed to the limited opportunities they had for language exposure and
use during their preschool years.

Balanced Bilinguals
On average, the Spanish skills of the Balanced Bilinguals in our sample were superior to their
English skills upon entry to HS, and they grew to become Balanced Bilinguals by improving
English skills while also developing Spanish skills over the 2.5 years in HS and K. They presented
Spanish skills comparable to those of Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals and had the highest gains in
English among the three groups. Balanced Bilinguals also had the highest achievement at
K. Balanced Bilinguals presented above average age-normed standard scores in the conceptual
expressive vocabulary skills (M standard score = 103.21), and their math and literacy skills were
comparable to those of the overall sample of children who entered HS at age 3 (Malone et al.,
2013). These findings reinforce the scholarly consensus that learning two languages neither
imposes a cognitive burden on children nor impedes their learning (Espinosa, 2013, 2015;
NASEM, 2017).
The ECE field acknowledges that sole emphasis on English acquisition is not the optimal instruc­
tional approach for DLLs. The current scholarly consensus emphasizes that DLLs reap many benefits
when continuously developing and maintaining their home language(s) while learning English
(Espinosa, 2015; MacSwan et al., 2017; McCabe et al., 2013; Raikes et al., 2019; NASEM, 2017). Our
findings corroborate such knowledge.
16 J.-Y. CHOI ET AL.

Language Environment
The wide variability in dual-language proficiency among DLLs who participated in HS raises
the question of how their early language experiences differ. Our results uncovered several
differences in the home and classroom environments. These findings contribute to the emer­
ging evidence that DLLs benefit from consistent exposure to both languages (Barnett et al.,
2007; Raikes et al., 2019). In line with the current literature, we found that if DLLs had more
exposure to a language, they became more fluent in the language by K. In general, Spanish-
Dominant Bilinguals had the most Spanish exposure at home (e.g., more of them were read to
primarily in Spanish, and they had relatively more children’s books in Spanish over English),
whereas their home environment provided less English exposure (e.g., fewer children were
read to primarily in English, and they had less exposure to TV in English) and their parents
had lower English proficiency than those of other groups. Furthermore, Spanish-Dominant
Bilinguals, relative to English-Dominant Bilinguals, had more Spanish exposure in their class­
rooms during their first year in HS (e.g., Spanish was used for class instruction), and their
teachers had higher Spanish proficiency. On the other hand, English-Dominant Bilinguals had
more English exposure at home than Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals, but they had less Spanish
exposure at home (e.g., fewer types of home literacy materials in Spanish) and in their first-
year HS classrooms (e.g., Spanish was used for class instruction) compared to Spanish-
Dominant Bilinguals.
Balanced Bilinguals, relative to Spanish-Dominant Bilinguals, had more English exposure
(e.g., more children were read to primarily in English, their parents’ English proficiency was
higher, and more children watched TV in English), and a higher percentage of Balanced
Bilinguals’ parents reported that their children’s English improvement is essential to them.
Compared to English-Dominant Bilinguals, Balanced Bilinguals had more Spanish exposure at
home (e.g., they had more types of home literacy materials in Spanish) and were with teachers
who were more proficient in Spanish during their first HS year. It is worth noting that
although Balanced Bilinguals had more Spanish exposure in their homes and classrooms,
they showed higher gains in English (PPVT) over the 2.5 years than did the English-
Dominant Bilinguals. These findings may indicate that exposure to home-language-friendly
environments does not delay DLLs’ acquisition of English skills but may even facilitate English
acquisition when English development is simultaneously supported. It is also worth noting
that English-Dominant Bilinguals, who had lower proficiency in both languages than Balanced
Bilinguals, had similar English exposure but less Spanish exposure in their environment than
Balanced Bilinguals. Such findings may indicate that home English exposure at the expense of
home language exposure could contribute to slower growth in each language.
This study presents the importance of identifying and creating linguistically stimulating envir­
onments for DLLs’ learning in both languages. Although more research is needed to advance our
understanding of effective environments for bilingual development (NASEM, 2017), existing
literature offers many promising approaches to support DLLs. These recommendations highlight
opportunities for proficient speakers’ frequent use of and exposure to both languages that do not
diminish other language exposure and use (e.g., Hoff, 2018). Specific to ECE programs, the field
has recommended providing frequent opportunities to converse with peers and adults, creating an
environment where DLLs can be exposed to and use their home language (e.g., inviting adults who
can speak DLLs’ language for book reading and conversation), providing intentional English and
home language support (e.g., reviewing keywords in a child’s home language before reading
a book), providing learning opportunities for English acquisition (e.g., pairing DLLs with English-
speaking children; repeating key vocabulary words), and creating a welcoming environment (e.g.,
books, posters, visual aids representing different languages and culture; Castro et al., 2011;
National Center on Early Childhood Development, Teaching and Learning, n.d.). An increasing
volume of research has further shown the promise of two-way immersion programs, which offer
 EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 17

academic instruction in a combination of English and the primary language spoken by children
(e.g., Serafini et al., 2022).
These approaches highlight the importance of frequent high-quality language exposure to and use
of English as well as DLLs’ home languages. However, we know little about whether such approaches
are universally effective for all DLLs or whether such effectiveness differs depending on DLLs’ skillsets
in each developing language. Given their unique skillsets and needs, Spanish-Dominant DLLs may
need additional deliberate English support in the classroom to facilitate their learning and under­
standing of both languages, while English-Dominant DLLs may benefit more from frequent exposure
to and use of their home languages in their classrooms. These speculations merit future research
attention.

Limitations and Future Study

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting the findings of this study. First,
criticisms of the TVIP should be noted. As reviewed by Wood et al. (2021), researchers have
pointed out that TVIP’s normative sample, who were Spanish-speaking children living in Mexico
and Puerto Rico, may not adequately represent DLLs growing up in the U.S. Wood et al. found
that DLLs responded more accurately on items that were more likely to be used at home,
indicating differential item functioning of items on the TVIP. Furthermore, TVIP has not been
updated since 1980 and thus uses older features (e.g., black and white images and outdated
technology depicted) that might depress students’ raw scores compared to PPVT, which has
more modern features (e.g., color print). TVIP is widely used to assess the Spanish receptive
vocabulary skills of DLLs living in the U.S., yet these concerns should be considered when
interpreting the study findings.
Second, we used home language environment data collected at the time of children’s entry to HS.
We acknowledge that home language practices and experiences can change as children’s skillsets
develop. In FACES 2009, parents were asked to report their home language environment once, and the
HS entry was the primary time point when the data were collected.
Third, our language environment variables broadly reflect the quality and quantity of the exposure
and use of each language, but we cannot provide further details about actual experiences at home and
in the classroom. Also, this study relies on parent and teacher reports on language environment
variables, but we cannot verify that parents’ and teachers’ reports are reliable. We hope this explora­
tory study will encourage more scholarly research on the optimal environments for dual-language
learning.
Fourth, our study focused only on DLLs whose home language was Spanish. Although Spanish-
English DLLs are the largest DLL group in the U.S., we acknowledge that non-Spanish-speaking DLLs
living in the U.S. are largely excluded from the discussion, even within DLL literature. These non-
Spanish-speaking DLLs have their own difficulties and strengths, and they deserve more research
attention.
Finally, given the correlational nature of this study, this study does not have the capability to draw
causal inferences. For example, this study cannot provide causal evidence of bilingual benefits in
children’s school readiness because children with more advanced skills across school readiness may
also acquire vocabulary in both languages more rapidly than children with less advanced skills.

Conclusion
This study utilized nationally representative datasets from FACES 2009 that are unique in that they
paid particular attention to the DLLs’ learning environments, experiences, and development in HS.
This study contributes to the emerging body of research that aims to understand dual-language
skillsets. Corroborating the view that DLLs are not a homogeneous group of children, the results
showed that the pattern of dual-language acquisition differed widely during HS and K years. Such
18 J.-Y. CHOI ET AL.

findings indicate the importance of continuous assessment in both languages that DLLs develop to
understand their accompanying instructional needs and provide optimal support for their learning.
Further, these findings indicate the need to better understand DLLs’ language experiences contribut­
ing to the different dual-language learning patterns. Our preliminary evidence suggests that both
home and classroom language environments explain such differences in their dual-language learning
during HS and K years. This study calls for additional research illuminating contextual factors
promoting balanced bilingualism.

Disclosure Statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding
This study was supported by the American Educational Research Association’s Division G-Social Context of Education.

References
Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2014). Auxiliary variables in mixture modeling: Three-step approaches using M plus.
Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 329–341. [Link]
915181
Barnett, W. S., Yarosz, D. J., Thomas, J., Jung, K., & Blanco, D. (2007). Two-way and monolingual English immersion in
preschool education: An experimental comparison. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 22(3), 277–293. [Link]
org/10.1016/[Link].2007.03.003
Bialystok, E. (2001). Bilingualism in development: Language, literacy, and cognition. Cambridge University Press.
Bozdogan, H. (1987). Model selection and Akaike’s Information Criterion (AIC): The general theory and its analytical
extensions. Psychometrika, 52(3), 345–370. [Link]
Brownell, R. (2001). Expressive one-word picture vocabulary test: Spanish-bilingual edition. Academic Therapy
Publications.
Castro, D. C., Hammer, C. S., Franco, X., Cycyk, L. M., Scarpino, S. E., & Burchinal, M. R. (2020). Documenting bilingual
experiences in the early years: Using the CECER-DLL child and family and teacher questionnaires. Bilingualism:
Language and Cognition, 23(5), 958–963. [Link]
Castro, D. C., Páez, M. M., Dickinson, D. K., & Frede, E. (2011). Promoting language and literacy in young dual language
learners: Research, practice, and policy. Child Development Perspectives, 5(1), 15–21. [Link]
8606.2010.00142.x
Child and Family Data Archive. (n.d.). Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES): 2009. [Link]
[Link]/cfda/archives/cfda/studies/34558/variables
Child Trend. (n.d.). Dual language learners. [Link]
Choi, J. Y., Jeon, S., & Lippard, C. (2018). Dual language learning, inhibitory control, and math achievement in Head
Start and kindergarten. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 42, 66–78. [Link]
Choi, J. Y., Rouse, H., & Ryu, D. (2018). Academic development of Head Start children: Role of dual language learning
status. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 56, 52–66. [Link]
Cummins, J. (1979). Linguistic interdependence and the educational development of bilingual children. Review of
Educational Research, 49(2), 222–251. [Link]
Cummins, J. (1981). The role of primary language development in promoting educational success for language minority
students. In California State Department of Education (Ed.), Schooling and language minority students: A theoretical
rationale (pp. 3–49). California State University.
Dunn, L. M., & Dunn, D. M. (2007). Peabody picture vocabulary test (4th ed.). American Guidance Service.
Dunn, L. M., Padilla, E. R., Lugo, D. E., & Dunn, L. M. (1986). Test de Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody [Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test]. American Guidance Service.
Espinosa, L. (2006). The social, cultural, and linguistic components of school readiness in Young Latino children. In
L. M. Beaulieu (Ed.), The social-emotional development of young children from diverse backgrounds (pp. 7–22).
National Black Child Development Institute Press .
Espinosa, L. (2013). Challenging common myths about dual language learners: An update to the seminal 2008 report.
Foundation of Child Development website. [Link]
Espinosa, L. M. (2015). Challenges and benefits of early bilingualism in the US context. Global Education Review, 2(1),
14–31.
 EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 19

Fillmore, L. W. (1991). When learning a second language means losing the first. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 6
(3), 323–346. [Link]
Grimm, R. P., Solari, E. J., & Gerber, M. M. (2018). A longitudinal investigation of reading development from
kindergarten to grade eight in a Spanish-speaking bilingual population. Reading and Writing, 31(3), 559–581.
[Link]
Halle, T., Hair, E., Wandner, L., McNamara, M., & Chien, N. (2012). Predictors and outcomes of early versus later
English language proficiency among English language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 27(1), 1–20.
[Link]
Halpin, E., Prishker, N., & Melzi, G. (2021). The bilingual language diversity of Latino preschoolers: A latent profile
analysis. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 52(3), 877–888. [Link]
00015
Hammer, C. S., Hoff, E., Uchikoshi, Y., Gillanders, C., Castro, D. C., & Sandilos, L. E. (2014). The language and literacy
development of young dual language learners: A critical review. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 29(4), 715–733.
[Link]
Han, W. J. (2012). Bilingualism and academic achievement. Child Development, 83(1), 300–321. [Link]
j.1467-8624.2011.01686.x
Hemphill, L., & Tivnan, T. (2008). The importance of early vocabulary for literacy achievement in high-poverty schools.
Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 13(4), 426–451. [Link]
10824660802427710
Hindman, A. H., & Wasik, B. A. (2015). Building vocabulary in two languages: An examination of Spanish-speaking dual
language learners in Head Start. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 31, 19–33. [Link]
12.006
Hoff, E. (2013). Interpreting the early language trajectories of children from low-SES and language minority homes:
Implications for closing achievement gaps. Developmental Psychology, 49(1), 4. [Link]
Hoff, E. (2018). Bilingual development in children of immigrant families. Child Development Perspectives, 12(2), 80–86.
[Link]
Hoff, E., Core, C., Place, S., Rumiche, R., Señor, M., & Parra, M. (2012). Dual language exposure and early bilingual
development. Journal of Child Language, 39(1), 1–27. [Link]
Hoff, E., Rumiche, R., Burridge, A., Ribot, K. M., & Welsh, S. N. (2014). Expressive vocabulary development in children
from bilingual and monolingual homes: A longitudinal study from two to four years. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 29(4), 433–444. [Link]
Howard, M. C., & Hoffman, M. E. (2018). Variable-centered, person-centered, and person-specific approaches: Where
theory meets the method. Organizational Research Methods, 21(4), 846–876. [Link]
1094428117744021
Hurtado, N., Grüter, T., Marchman, V. A., & Fernald, A. (2014). Relative language exposure, processing efficiency and
vocabulary in Spanish–English bilingual toddlers. Bilingualism: Language and Cognition, 17(1), 189–202. [Link]
org/10.1017/S136672891300014X
Hwang, J. K., Mancilla-Martinez, J., Flores, I., & McClain, J. B. (2022). The relationship among home language use,
parental beliefs, and Spanish-speaking children’s vocabulary. International Journal of Bilingual Education and
Bilingualism, 25(4), 1175–1193. [Link]
Jedidi, K., Ramaswamy, V., & DeSarbo, W. S. (1993). A maximum likelihood method for latent class regression involving
a censored dependent variable. Psychometrika, 58(3), 375–394. [Link]
Jung, T., & Wickrama, K. A. (2008). An introduction to latent class growth analysis and growth mixture modeling. Social
and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(1), 302–317. [Link]
Kim, D. H., Lambert, R. G., & Burts, D. C. (2018). Are young dual language learners homogeneous? Identifying
subgroups using latent class analysis. The Journal of Educational Research, 111(1), 43–57. [Link]
00220671.2016.1190912
Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (4th ed.). Guilford Press.
Lantolf, J., & Thorne, S. L. (2006). Sociocultural theory and the genesis of second language development. Oxford University
Press.
Li, X. (1999). How can language minority parents help their children become bilingual in familial context? A case study
of a language minority mother and her daughter. Bilingual Research Journal, 23(2–3), 211–223. [Link]
1080/15235882.1999.10668687
López, L. M., & Foster, M. E. (2021). Examining heterogeneity among Latino dual language learners’ school readiness
profiles of English and Spanish at the end of Head Start. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 73, 101239.
[Link]
Lubke, G., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Performance of factor mixture models as a function of model size, covariate effects,
and class-specific parameters. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14(1), 26–47. [Link]
org/10.1080/10705510709336735
MacSwan, J. (2000). The threshold hypothesis, semilingualism, and other contributions to a deficit view of linguistic
minorities. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 22(1), 3–45. [Link]
20 J.-Y. CHOI ET AL.

MacSwan, J., Thompson, M. S., Rolstad, K., McAlister, K., & Lobo, G. (2017). Three theories of the effects of language
education programs: An empirical evaluation of bilingual and English-only policies. Annual Review of Applied
Linguistics, 37, 218–240. [Link]
Malone, L., Carlson, B. L., Aikens, N., Moiduddin, E., Klein, A. K., West, J., & Rall, K. (2013). Head Start family and child
experiences survey: 2009 cohort user guide. Office of Planning, Research, and Evaluation, Administration for Children
and Families, U.S. Department of Health, and Human Services.
McCabe, A., Tamis LeMonda, C. S., Bornstein, M. H., Brockmeyer Cates, C., Golinkoff, R., Wishard Guerra, A., Song, L.,
Melzi, G., Song, L., Golinkoff, R., Hoff, E., Mendelsohn, A., & Cates, C. B. (2013). Multilingual children beyond myths
and toward best practices. Social Policy Report, 27(4), 1–37. [Link]
McNamara, K. (2016). Dual language learners in Head Start: The promises and pitfalls of new reforms. [Link]
[Link]/article/dual-language-learners-head-start-promises-and-pitfalls-new-reforms
Migration Policy Institute Data Hub. (n.d.). Young dual language learners in the United States and by state. [Link]
[Link]/programs/data-hub/charts/us-state-profiles-young-dlls
Moran, M. D. (2003). Arguments for rejecting the sequential Bonferroni in ecological studies. Oikos, 100(2), 403–405.
[Link]
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). Promoting the educational success of children and
youth learning English: Promising futures. The National Academies Press. [Link]
National Center on Early Childhood Development, Teaching and Learning. (n.d.). Professional learning guide:
Intentional language support for children who are dual language learners. [Link]
files/pdf/[Link]
Nylund, K. L., Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2007). Deciding on the number of classes in latent class analysis and
growth mixture modeling: A Monte Carlo simulation study. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary
Journal, 14(4), 535–569. [Link]
Oller, D. K., & Eilers, R. E. (2002). Language and literacy in bilingual children. Multilingual Matters. [Link]
21832/9781853595721
Paradis, J. (2011). Individual differences in child English second language acquisition: Comparing child-internal and
child-external factors. Linguistic Approaches to Bilingualism, 1(3), 213–237. [Link]
Park, M., Zong, J., & Batalova, J. (2018). Growing superdiversity among young US dual language learners and its
implications. Migration Policy Institute.
Partika, A., Johnson, A. D., Phillips, D. A., Luk, G., Dericks, A., & Study Team, T. S. (2021). Dual language supports for
dual language learners? Exploring preschool classroom instructional supports for DLLs’ early learning outcomes.
Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 56, 124–138. [Link]
Proctor, C. P., Carlo, M., August, D., & Snow, C. (2005). Native Spanish-speaking children reading in English: Toward
a model of comprehension. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(2), 246. [Link]
Raikes, H. H., White, L., Green, S., Burchinal, M., Kainz, K., Horm, D., Bingham, G., Cobo-Lewis, A., St. Clair, L.,
Greenfield, D., & Esteraich, J. (2019). Use of the home language in preschool classrooms and first-and
second-language development among dual-language learners. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 47, 145–158.
[Link]
Ramsook, K. A., Welsh, J. A., & Bierman, K. L. (2020). What you say, and how you say it: Preschoolers’ growth in
vocabulary and communication skills differentially predict kindergarten academic achievement and self‐regulation.
Social Development, 29(3), 783–800. [Link]
Rowe, M. L., Raudenbush, S. W., & Goldin‐Meadow, S. (2012). The pace of vocabulary growth helps predict later
vocabulary skill. Child Development, 83(2), 508–525. [Link]
Saville, D. J. (1990). Multiple comparison procedures: The practical solution. The American Statistician, 44(2), 174–180.
[Link]
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. The Annals of Statistics, 6(2), 461–464. [Link]
1214/aos/1176344136
Serafini, E. J., Rozell, N., & Winsler, A. (2022). Academic and English language outcomes for DLLs as a function of
school bilingual education model: The role of two-way immersion and home language support. International Journal
of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 25(2), 552–570. [Link]
Snow, K., Thalji, L., Derecho, A., Wheeless, S., Lennon, J., Kinsey, S., Rogers, J., Raspa, M., & Park, J. (2007). Early
Childhood Longitudinal Study, Birth cohort (ECLS–B), preschool year data file user’s manual (2005–06) (NCES 2008–
024), 1–190. National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Thordardottir, E. (2019). Amount trumps timing in bilingual vocabulary acquisition: Effects of input in simultaneous
and sequential school-age bilinguals. International Journal of Bilingualism, 23(1), 236–255. [Link]
1367006917722418
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Early Childhood Longitudinal Study—Kindergarten class of 1998–99 (ECLS-K),
psychometric report for kindergarten through first grade (NCES 2002–05). National Center for Education Statistics.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services & U.S. Department of Education. (2016). Policy statement on supporting
the development of children who are dual language learners in early childhood programs. [Link]
fulltext/[Link]
 EARLY EDUCATION & DEVELOPMENT 21

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families Office of Head Start. (2016).
Head Start program performance standards (45 CFR Chapter XIII). [Link]
pdf/[Link]
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families, Office of Planning Research
and Evaluation. (n.d.). Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey 2019 (FACES 2019), ICPSR codebook for child
data. Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. [Link]
ICPSR38026.v1
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Administration for Children and Families. Office of Planning, Research
and Evaluation. (n.d.). Head Start Family and Child Experiences Survey (FACES): 2009 cohort [United States]. Inter-
university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor]. [Link]
Vuong, Q. H. (1989). Likelihood ratio tests for model selection and non-nested hypotheses. Econometrica: Journal of the
Econometric Society, 57(2), 307–333. [Link]
Vygotsky, L. S., & Cole, M. (1978). Mind in society: Development of higher psychological processes. Harvard university
press.
Wong, K. M., Flynn, R. M., & Neuman, S. B. (2021). L2 vocabulary learning from educational media: The influence of
screen‐based scaffolds on the incidental–intentional continuum. TESOL Journal, 12(4), e641. [Link]
tesj.641
Wood, C., Hoge, R., Schatschneider, C., & Castilla-Earls, A. (2021). Predictors of item accuracy on the Test de
Vocabulario en Imagenes Peabody for Spanish-English speaking children in the United States. International
Journal of Bilingual Education and Bilingualism, 24(8), 1178–1192. [Link]
Woodcock, R. W., McGrew, K. S., & Mather, N. (2001). Woodcock-Johnson III NU complete. Riverside Publishing.