Early Child Development and Care

ISSN: 0300-4430 (Print) 1476-8275 (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/gecd20

The Unique Contribution of Home Literacy

Environment to Differences in Early Literacy Skills

Elizabeth A. Griffin & Frederick J. Morrison

To cite this article: Elizabeth A. Griffin & Frederick J. Morrison (1997) The Unique Contribution of
Home Literacy Environment to Differences in Early Literacy Skills , Early Child Development and
Care, 127:1, 233-243, DOI: 10.1080/0300443971270119

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/0300443971270119

Published online: 30 Jul 2010.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2592

View related articles

Citing articles: 32 View citing articles

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

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=gecd20
Early ChildDevelopment and Care, 1997,Vols. 127-128, pp. 233-243 © 1997 OPA (Overseas Publishers Association)
Reprints available directly from the publisher Amsterdam B.V. Published in The Netherlands under
Photocopying permitted by license only license by Gordon and Breach Science Publishers
Printed in Malaysia

The Unique Contribution of Home Literacy

Environment to Differences in
Early Literacy Skills†

ELIZABETH A. GRIFFIN and FREDERICK J. MORRISON*

Department of Psychology, Loyola University of Chicago,
6525 N Sheridan Road, Chicago, Illinois 60626, USA
(Received 5 October 1996)

The psychometric utility of a home literacy environment measure is evaluated and its
unique contribution to predicting literacy skills is examined. The scale is derived from
information provided by parents of kindergarten children about the amount of reading
materials in the home, and the frequency of library visits, adult literacy-related behaviors,
adult-child reading, and television viewing. Measures of language, reading, general
knowledge and math were collected from 295 children in fall of kindergarten and spring
of second grade. The home literacy environment scale predicts unique variance in
kindergarten and second grade language-based, but not number-based, literacy skills.
Hence, the simple and easily administered measure of the home literacy environment
proves to be psychometrically strong and uniquely predictive of differences in early
literacy skills.

Considerable evidence shows that large numbers of American students have inad-
equate literacy and numeracy skills. National assessments of American school-aged
children reveal that literacy skills are below what is necessary for success in school
(Applebee, Langer & Mullins, 1989). Further, cross-cultural studies demonstrate
that children schooled in Asian countries outperform their American counterparts
in mathematics achievement, problem-solving skills and reading (Stevenson & Lee,
1990; Stevenson, Chen & Lee, 1993).
Achievement differences are apparent as soon as children begin formal schooling.
American children start school witii vastly different literacy and numeracy skills
(e.g., Alexander & Entwisle, 1988; Morrison, Griffith, Williamson & Hardway, 1995).
Although some of the differences can be attributed to more traditional indices, such

†This research was supported by a grant from National Institute of Child Health and Human ,
Development (HD27176).
* Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Frederick J. Morrison, Department
of Psychology, Loyola University of Chicago, 6525 N Sheridan Road, Chicago, Illinois 60626. Electronic
mail may be sent to fmorris@orion.it.luc.edu.

233
234 E.A. GRIFFIN and F.J. MORRISON

as IQ, increasing evidence suggests that what children experience before they begin
formal schooling affects where they lie on the broad continuum of school readiness
(Hart & Risley, 1995). Experiences that children have at home or at preschool, for
example, should be considered as sources of potential influence.
Recent attention has focused on an aspect of the home context as a potential
source of influence on children's entering skills: the home literacy environment.
While the claim that the home literacy environment might influence a child's
literacy development is not new (Teale, 1986), a number of fundamental questions
remain unanswered. In particular, techniques and instruments to measure the
nature and influence of the home literacy environment are still in a preliminary
stage. The "home literacy environment" has been denned predominantly by a
single feature, the frequency of parent-preschooler reading (Bus, van ljzendoorn &
Pellegrini, 1995). But questions have been raised about the adequacy and power of
reading frequency as a predictor of subsequent literacy attainment (Scarborough &
Dobrich, 1994). Others have considered a multifaceted definition of home literacy,
including measures of the duration of shared picture book reading, number of
picture books, and frequency of child's requests for picture book reading activity
(Payne, Whitehurst & Angell, 1994; Scarborough, Dobrich & Hager, 1991). For
example, Payne and his colleagues (1994) examined the influence of home literacy
on the development of language skills in an economically homogeneous sample.
They found that the home literacy environment captured between 12% and 18.5%
unique variance in language skills after taking out the effects of parent IQ and
parent education. These results must be viewed with caution, however, because
other important sources of influence highly correlated with child achievement were
not included in the model. In addition, other potentially important aspects of the
home literacy environment, such as television viewing, were not considered in their
measure. Our measure of home literacy was similar to that used by Payne and
his colleagues. We included questions about what we considered to be important,
minimal defining features of the home literacy environment that are easily assessed
through a self-report questionnaire: the presence/absence of reading materials
in the home (newspapers, child and adult magazines, and children's books), the
frequency of library visits; the frequency of observable literacy-related behaviors
(mother and father read to themselves), the frequency with which an adult reads
to the child, and the frequency of one literacy-competitive behavior (television
viewing). Other aspects of the home literacy environment shown to predict literacy
skills were not included in our measure. For example, De Temple (1994) found
that the amount of non-immediate talk by mothers to their preschool children is
associated with later language skills. However, it is difficult to reliably measure the
amount of non-immediate talk using a questionnaire. Moreover, we believed that
such an index would be highly correlated with those aspects of the home literacy
environment tfiat we do assess.
The present study addresses two major issues concerning home literacy. First,
we examine how well our measure of the home literacy environment predicts
unique variance in children's performance on academic achievement measures after
accounting for other important sources of variance, such as child IQand maternal
 CONTRIBUTION OF HOME LITERACY ENVIRONMENT 235

education. We expect our index to capture unique variance in performance on

literacy-based tasks but not numeracy-based tasks. Second, we want to validate the
effectiveness of our succinct measure of the home literacy environment in predicting
literacy-based achievement differences among children.

METHOD

Subjects
A total of two-hundred and ninety-five elementary school students in Greensboro,
North Carolina, a large southeastern city, were followed from the fall of kinder-
garten through the spring of 2nd grade.0 The students represented 55 separate
kindergarten classrooms within 16 elementary schools. There were roughly equal
numbers of females (n = 145,49%) and males. Whites (n= 180, 61%) outnumbered
African-Americans (n = 113, 38%) and "Others" (n = 2, 1%). At the point of initial
testing, students ranged in age from 4 years 10 months to 5 years 10 months, with
the average age being 5 years 5 months.

Procedure
Children's literacy and numeracy skills were assessed in the fall of kindergarten, and
each subsequent spring from kindergarten through second grade, using the Peabody
Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT-R, Form L; Dunn & Dunn, 1981) and three subtests
of the Peabody Individual Achievement Test (PIAT-R, Form-L; Markwardt, 1989).
The PPVT was used to measure receptive vocabulary and the PIAT-R was used to
measure general knowledge, reading recognition, and mathematics skills. Children
were also administered an abbreviated battery of the Stanford-Binet Intelligence
Scale (Thorndike, Hagen & Sattler, 1986) in the middle of their kindergarten year.
Table 1 provides means and standard deviations for these measures.
A two-page background questionnaire designed to obtain information on
maternal and paternal education and occupation, family composition and structure,
child's health, child's preschool experience, and the home literacy environment
was completed by parents during late fall of the child's kindergarten year (see
Table 1). An index of the quality of the home literacy environment was created

"These data were collected as part of the Greensboro Early Schooling Study, initiated in the fall of
1990. Three consecutive cohorts of entering kindergarten children participated in the study using an
active parental-consent procedure, and continued only with annually renewed consent. The original
three-cohort sample was considerably larger, n = 663. Attrition from the study was due to many factors
typical of longitudinal research: failed to renew active consent during first or second grade (n = 244); held
out of kindergarten, so effectively one year older than average, (n = 71); retained (n = 52) or promoted
early (n=l). A comparison of participants with complete data across the three years with those who
dropped out of the study revealed that the final sample is similar to the original sample with respect to
gender, but different with respect to race, maternal education and IQ. The group of children who left
the study had more African-American children, and maternal education and IQ were lower. In effect, our
final sample has less variance than the original, so any conclusions we draw will be conservative estimates
for the population.
236 E.A. GRIFFIN and F.J. MORRISON

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for predictor and outcome

variables.
Mean Std. Dev.

Predictors
Child IQ 100.44 15.33
Maternal education (# years) 14.05 2.49
Entrance age (# months) 64.79 4.18
Preschool (# months) 23.82 18.02
Home literacy environment 9.33 3.19
Outcomes
Pretest
Receptive Vocabulary 59.88 18.66
General Knowledge 15.54 9.35
Reading 9.17 6.27
Mathematics 12.84 5.69
Post-test
Receptive Vocabulary 93.69 14.88
General Knowledge 40.35 15.97
Reading 47.14 14.79
Mathematics 37.94 13.03

by first assigning from 0 to 2 points, with 2 indicating a more positive home

literacy environment, to each of 9 literacy-related items: number of child and adult
magazine subscriptions in the household; number of newspaper subscriptions in the
household; hours of television watched per week by the child; how often a library
card was used by a member of the household*; how often someone read to the child;
the number of books the child owned; and how often the modier and father read
to themselves. Next, the assigned points were summed to create a single index, the
"home literacy environment." Inter-item reliability for the measure was determined
to be satisfactory (Cronbach's a = .74). Appendix A presents in greater detail the
items and scoring scheme for the composite index.

RESULTS

A three-step analytic strategy was adopted in order to determine the unique

contribution of the home literacy environment to differences in literacy skills.
First, correlations were computed to determine the relations between theoretically
relevant predictor variables (specifically, number of months of preschool, age
upon entry into school, maternal education, and IQ) and fall kindergarten and
spring 2nd grade outcome variables, expressed as raw scores (PPVT-R and PIAT-R).

This item ranged from 0 to 1 points.

 CONTRIBUTION OF HOME LITERACY ENVIRONMENT 237

Table 2 Intercorrelations among select predictor and outcome variables.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Predictors
1. Child I Q
2. Maternal education 0.41**
3. Entrance age 0.09 0.14
4. Home literacy environment 0 . 5 3 " 0.54** 0.17*
5. Preschool 0.13 0.37** 0.10 0.17*
Outcomes
Pretest
6. Receptive Vocabulary 0.63** 0.46** 0.37** 0.63** 0.16'
7. General Knowledge 0.60** 0.45" 0.35** 0.54" 0.14 0.79"
8. Reading 0.47** 0.35" 0.32" 0.42** 0.18* 0.54" 0.55**
9. Mathematics 0.58** 0.30** 0.37** 0.43** 0.18* 0.59" 0.60** 0.58**
Post-test
# Receptive Vocabulary 0.60** 0.42" 0.21** 0.55" 0.08 0.74" 0.74" 0.54** 0.64**
# General Knowledge 0.58** 0.47" 0.24" 0.56" 0.09 0.67** 0 . 7 3 " 0.51** 0 . 5 8 " 0.73**
# Reading 0.52** 0.40** 0.17* 0.49** 0.15* 0.47** 0.49** 0.52** 0.46" 0.55** 0.59**
# Mathematics 0.62** 0.41** 0.29" 0.48" 0.17* 0.50" 0.52" 0.52" 0 . 6 3 " 0.60** 0.63** 0 . 6 1 "

*/><.01, **/><.001

Table 2 presents these intercorrelations. For race and gender, analyses of variance
were conducted to evaluate group differences for each outcome variable. Second,
step-wise regressions were conducted to determine which of the statistically or
theoretically related variables captured unique variance in each outcome. Finally,
forced-entry regressions were run to determine the contribution made by home
literacy environment after the effects of statistically or theoretically related predictors
were removed. This same strategy was used for fall kindergarten and spring second
grade test scores.

Fall Kindergarten

Receptive vocabulary
We evaluated a seven-variable model for predicting performance on the receptive
vocabulary test (PPVT-R) in the fall of kindergarten. Child IQ, maternal education,
entrance age, preschool experience, race and gender were entered as a block in the
first step of the forced-entry regression analysis, and home literacy environment was
entered in the second. Table 3 presents the coefficients for this model. Examination
of the standardized coefficients reveals that the home literacy environment was a
powerful and significant predictor of children's receptive vocabulary skills (.R2 = .029,
jfr=.OOO). In fact, it is as powerful as both entrance age and race; only IQ was a
stronger predictor. Specifically, children with higher scores on our index of home
literacy demonstrated better receptive vocabulary skills at school entry than children
with lower scores.
238 E.A. GRIFFIN and F.J. MORRISON

Table 3 Predictor variable coefficients for kindergarten outcomes.

Outcomes
Receptive General
Predictors Vocabulary Knowledge Reading Mathematics
IQ .403** .219** .139** .172**
(.331) (.359) (.339) (.462)
Maternal education .672 .555* .201 -.076
(.090) (.148) (.080) (-.033)
Entrance age 1.091** .547'* .370** .405**
(.244) (.245) (.247) (.297)
Preschool experience -.022 -.019 .023 .022
(-.021) (-.036) (.065) (.069)
Race -8.027** -2.439+ .463 -.679
(-.210) (-.127) (.036) (-.058)
Gender 1.260 -.681 -1.15 -.073
(.034) (-.036) (-.092) (-.006)
Home literacy environment 1.415** .458* .303+ .194
(.242) (.156) (.154) (.108)

Constant -70.911 -52.237 -34.536 -31.577

R squared .787 .516 .342 .453

Note: Standardized beta coefficients are shown in parentheses. +p< -05, *p< .01, **/>< .001.

General knowledge
The same seven-variable model was evaluated for predicting performance on the
general knowledge test (PIAT-R) in the fall of kindergarten (see Table 3). Findings
here revealed that home literacy environment, though not as powerful as IQ or
entrance age, did predict unique variance after taking into account other associated
predictors (if2 =.012, jfr=.OO9). In fact, home literacy environment emerged as
a stronger predictor of general knowledge performance than either maternal
education or race.

Reading recognition
We evaluated our model for predicting performance on the reading recognition test
(PIAT-R) in the fall of kindergarten (see Table 3). Although not as powerful as for
receptive vocabulary and general knowledge skills, the home literacy environment
predicts unique variance in children's reading recognition skills (i?2 = .012, p= .027).

Mathematics
Finally, our model was evaluated for predicting performance on the mathematics
test (PIAT-R) in the fall of kindergarten. As is shown in Table 3, as predicted the
home literacy environment did not account for any unique variance in children's
mathematics skills after removing the effects of more traditional indices (ii? = 006,
jfo=.O86).
 CONTRIBUTION OF HOME LITERACY ENVIRONMENT 239

Table 4 Predictor variable coefficients for second grade outcomes.

Outcomes
Receptive General
Predictors Vocabulary Knowledge Reading Mathematics
Pretest score .423 .891** .679** .734"
(.530) (.521) (.288) (.321)
IQ .135* .173** .197** .263
(.139) (.166) (.204) (.310)
Maternal education .433 .714 .602 .547+
(.072) (.111) (.101) (.104)
Entrance age -.165 .038 .009 .313
(-.046) (.010) (.002) (.100)
Preschool experience -.069+ -.069 -.010 -.003
(-.083) (-.078) (-.012) (-.004)
Race -4.973* .281 -2.443 -2.313
(-.163) (.009) (-.081) (-.087)
Gender 1.438 4.318" -1.815 2.130+
(.048) (.135) (-.061) (.082)
Home literacy environment .182 .785* .739+ .242
(.039) (.157) (.159) (.059)

Constant 60.546 -11.315 7.364 -28.295

R squared .610 .615 .416 .538

Note: Standardized beta coefficients are shown in parentheses. +p< .05, *p< .01, **p< .001.

In summary, our measure of the home literacy environment captured a significant

amount of unique variance in children's entering receptive vocabulary, general
knowledge, and reading recognition skills, but not entering mathematics skills.

Spring Second Grade

Receptive vocabulary
Our model for predicting performance on the receptive vocabulary test in the spring
of 2nd grade included the pretest score, IQ, maternal education, entrance age,
preschool experience, race and gender, which were entered as a block in the first
step of a regression analysis, and home literacy environment, which was entered in
the second step. Table 4 presents the results of this analysis.
After accounting for variance due to traditional theoretically relevant predictors,
the home literacy environment did not contribute additional unique variance to
performance on receptive vocabulary (i?2 = .001, p= .480).

General knowledge
We evaluated our eight-variable model for predicting general knowledge in the
spring of 2nd grade (see Table 4). After accounting for variance due to other
important sources, the home literacy environment captured unique variance in
240 E.A. GRIFFIN and F.J. MORRISON

post-test general knowledge scores ( ^ = .012, />=.004). Not only was it almost as
powerful as IQ, but the magnitude of predictive power observed for the pretest was
maintained for the post-test.

Reading recognition
We evaluated our model for predicting performance on the post-test reading
recognition score and found that the effects of the home literacy environment on
children's reading skills in the spring of 2nd grade persisted (i?2 = .012, p= .016) with
the same magnitude as what we observed for die pretest (see Table 4).

Mathematics
Finally, we evaluated our model for predicting spring 2nd grade mathematics
performance, and the same outcome as for the pretest was achieved: knowledge
of the home literacy environment does not better our prediction of mathematics
skills ( ^ = .002,^= .311).
In summary, the home literacy measure continues to capture unique variance for
performance on tests of general knowledge and reading recognition at the end of
second grade, and continues not to capture unique variance for mathematics.

DISCUSSION

This study demonstrated diat a succinct, easily administered measure of the home
literacy environment reliably predicts unique variance in children's literacy skills
at school entry and in second grade, after removing the variability attributed to
IQ and social background. Not surprisingly, our findings indicate that having a
higher home literacy environment is associated widi higher performance on tests of
receptive vocabulary, general knowledge, and, to some extent, reading recognition
skills during kindergarten. Moreover, this effect persisted for performance on tests
of general knowledge and reading recognition through the end of second grade,
revealing that home literacy experiences continue to play an important role in
children's achievement.
In contrast, our index did not predict well to children's mathematics skills. This
finding indicates that our measure was specific to language-based literacy, and that
number-based literacy, or numeracy, may be influenced by a different constellation
of experiences or factors. Inclusion of questions about more mathematics-oriented
activities and materials (e.g., frequency of playing counting games, number of madi
workbooks) might yield better predictability of the influence of home environment
on children's entering math skills. In any case, tins lack of predictive power for math
provides evidence for the discriminative sensitivity of our measure.
The home literacy environment scale was designed to capture die most salient and
relevant features of the home environment for early literacy acquisition. Admittedly,
other questions might be added in an attempt to refine our measure. For example,
 CONTRIBUTION OF HOME LITERACY ENVIRONMENT 241

questions about the frequency of immediate and non-immediate talk during reading
(De Temple, 1994) or perhaps more qualitative questions about home reading
activities, like the nature of adult-child reading interactions (Teale, 1986), would
yield somewhat greater predictability for reading recognition skills. Additional
questions, however, increase the burden to the respondent which could diminish
response rates. It is important, then, to make certain that additions significantly
increase the predictive power of the index.
Although the home literacy environment likely remains relatively constant, it
could change as a child enters and progresses through school. Our measure was
gathered only during the kindergarten year, making exploration of this problem
impossible. We are, however, impressed with the robust continuing effects of the
pre-school home literacy environment as late as 2 years after it was measured. In a
related study currently underway, we are collecting annual accounts of the home
literacy environment.
Notwithstanding these caveats, the present findings reveal clearly that a straight-
forward, simply administered measure of the home literacy environment uniquely
predicts literacy outcomes at school entry and at the end of second grade. Further, the
measure is discriminatively sensitive to language-based versus number-based literacy
skills. Taken together, results from this study demonstrate that the home literacy
environment has a unique impact on variations in children's literacy skills and that
the present scale exhibits solid psychometric properties.

References
Alexander, K.L. and Entwisle, D.R. (1988). Achievement in the first 2 years of school: Patterns and
processes. Monograph of the Society for Research in Child Development, 53(2, Serial No. 218).
Applebee, A.N., Langer, J.A., and Mullins, N.S. (1989). Crossroads in American education. Princeton, NJ:
Educational Testing Service.
Bus, A.G., van Ijzendoorn, M.H. and Pellegrini, A.D. (1995). Joint book reading makes for success in
learning to read: A meta-analysis on intergenerational transmission of literacy. Review of Educational
Research, 65(1), 1-21.
De Temple, J.M. (1994). Book reading styles of low-income mothers with preschoolers and children's later literacy
skills. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Harvard University.
Dunn, L. and Dunn, L. (1981). Peabody picture vocabulary test–revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance
Service.
Hart, B. and Risley, T.R. (1995). Meaningful differences in everyday experience of American children. Baltimore,
MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.
Markwardt, E.C. (1989). Peabody individual achievement test — revised. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance
Service.
Morrison, F.J., Griffith, E.M., Williamson, G. and Hardway, C.L. (1995). The nature and sources of early
literacy. Paper presented at the meeting for Society for Research in Child Development, Indianapolis,
IN.
Payne, A.C., Whitehurst, G.J. and Angell, A.L. (1994). The role of home literacy environment in the
development of language ability in preschool children from low-income homes. Early Childhood Research
Quarterly, 9, 427-440.
Scarborough, H.S. and Dobrich, W. (1994). On the efficacy of reading to preschoolers. Developmental
Review, 14, 245-302.
242 E.A. GRIFFIN and F.J. MORRISON

Scarborough, H.S., Dobrich, W. and Hager, M. (1991). Preschool literacy experience and later reading
achievement, Journal of Learning Disabilities, 24, 508-511.
Stevenson, H.W., Chen, C. and Lee, S.Y. (1993). Mathematics achievement of Chinese, Japanese, and
American children: Ten years later. Science, 259, 53-58.
Stevenson, H.W. and Lee, S.Y. (1990). Contexts of achievement. Monograph of the Societyfor Research in Child
Development, 55(1-2, Serial No. 221).
Teale, W.H. (1986). Home background and young children's literacy development. In W. Teale and
E. Sulzby (Eds.), Emergent literacy: Writingand reading (173-205). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
Thorndike, R.L., Hagen, E.P. and Sattler, J.M. (1986). The Stanford-Binet intelligence scale: Fourth edition.
Chicago, IL: The Riverside.

APPENDIX A

Home Literacy Environment: Items and Coding Scheme

The Home Literacy Environment score is a composite variable created by summing

the point values of 9 items. The items included in the composite are:

How many hours per day does your child watch TV? Mon-Fri__Sat Sun
(a weekly total is calculated as [5(#hrs Mon-Fri) + #hrs Sat + #hrs Sun])
0 points = hours per week spent watching TV is greater than 26 (inclusive)
1 point = hours per week spent watching TV is between 15 (inclusive) and 26
2 points = hours per week spent watching TV is between 0 and 15

Does anyone in the home have a library card? ( ) Yes ( ) No If YES, how often is it used?
0 points = once a month or less
1 point = more than once a month

Does your family subscribe to newspapers/magazines? ( ) Yes ( ) No

# Newspapers
0 points = no newspapers
1 point = 1 newspaper
2 points = more than 1 newspaper

# Adult magazines
0 points = no adult magazines
1 point = 1 or 2 adult magazines
2 points = more than 2 adult magazines
 CONTRIBUTION OF HOME LITERACY ENVIRONMENT 243

# Child magazines
0 points = no children's magazines
1 point = 1 children's magazine
2 points = more than 1 children's magazine

How often do you (mother) read to yourself?

( ) Daily ( ) Several times a week ( ) Weekly or less
0 points = weekly or less
1 point = several times a week
2 points = daily

How often do you (father) read to yourself.

( ) Daily ( ) Several times a week ( ) Weekly or less
0 points = weekly or less
1 point = several times a week
2 points = daily

Who reads to your child?

How often ? ( ) Daily ( ) Several times a week ( ) Weekly or less
0 points = weekly or less
1 point = several times a week
2 points = daily

Approximately how many books does your child own ?

( j Less than 10 ( ) 10-30 ( ) More than 30
0 points = fewer than 10 books
1 point = 10 to 30 books
2 points = more than 30 books