The Home Literacy Environment as a Predictor of the Early Literacy Development of Children at Family-Risk of Dyslexia

Abstract

The home literacy environment (HLE) predicts language and reading development in typically developing children; relatively little is known about its association with literacy development in children at family-risk of dyslexia. We assessed the HLE at age 4 years, precursor literacy skills at age 5, and literacy outcomes at age 6, in a sample of children at family-risk of dyslexia (n = 116) and children with no known risk (n = 72). Developmental relationships between the HLE and literacy were comparable between the groups; an additional effect of storybook exposure on phoneme awareness was observed in the family-risk group only. The effects of socioeconomic status on literacy were partially mediated by variations in the HLE; in turn, effects of the HLE on literacy were mediated by precursor skills (oral language, phoneme awareness, and emergent decoding) in both groups. Findings are discussed in terms of possible gene–environment correlation mechanisms underpinning atypical literacy development.

The Home Literacy Environment Is a Correlate, but Perhaps Not a Cause, of Variations in Children’s Language and Literacy Development

“…In addition, storybook exposure predicted children’s general language and reading/spelling skills, whereas direct literacy instruction predicted only children’s reading/spelling skills. This pattern of effects, ignoring possible effects from mothers’ own language and phonological skills, are broadly in line with previous findings (Bus et al, 1995; Hamilton et al, 2016). However, the most striking result here is that once mothers’ language and phonological skills are taken into account, storybook exposure is no longer a predictor of children’s language or reading/spelling skills.…”

“…This variable was measured using two parent checklist measures (Hamilton et al, 2016): (a) the Child Title Checklist containing 30 titles of popular children’s books intermixed with 30 plausible foils. The selected titles were the most frequently occurring items from online bestseller lists and lists of most frequently borrowed picture books provided by local librarians.…”

“…This variable was a mean composite of the z scores of three items from a family interview (α = .60), adapted from Sénéchal and Lefevre (2002) as described in Hamilton et al (2016). Parents were asked to rate how often they taught their children to recognise letters, read words, and write words, using a 5-point scale: 1 ( never/occasionally ), 2 ( about once a month ), 3 ( about once a week ), 4 ( several times a week ), and 5 ( daily ).…”

“…Formal literacy interactions, on the other hand, refer to activities in which adults directly teach reading or promote print-related skills at home (e.g., writing the child’s name, teaching letter names and sounds). Whereas formal literacy interactions in the preschool years are generally associated with better “code-based” literacy skills, including decoding, at or around school entry (Foy & Mann, 2003; Manolitsis, Georgiou, & Tziraki, 2013; Martini & Sénéchal, 2012), informal literacy practices (most commonly shared book-reading in the home) appear to be more closely associated with the development of broad oral language skills, including vocabulary knowledge, and thus indirectly with reading comprehension later in development (Hamilton, Hayiou-Thomas, Hulme, & Snowling, 2016; Sénéchal, 2006). …”

“…We know that different aspects of home literacy practices predict children’s oral language and emergent literacy skills in a subsample of the current cohort comprising only children at family risk of dyslexia and controls and not including children with language impairment (Hamilton et al, 2016). Our goal here was to examine the relationship between the home literacy environment and child reading/spelling and language outcomes in a larger sample while taking into account the effects of objectively measured maternal language and phonological skills.…”