Journal of Educational Psychology Copyright 2001 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

2001, Voi. 93, No. 3, 498-520 0022-0663/01/S5.00 DOI: I0.1037//0022-0663.93.3.498

Estimating Root Word Vocabulary Growth in Normative and Advantaged

Populations: Evidence for a Common Sequence of Vocabulary Acquisition

Andrew Biemiller and Naomi Slonim

University of Toronto

Root word vocabulary was studied in 2 normative samples (English-speaking, wide socioeconomic
range) and in an advantaged sample. The authors estimated that in 2nd grade, the mean normative
vocabulary was 5,200 root words, increasing to approximately 8,400 root words by 5th grade. During
grades 3-5, the lowest quartile added about 3 root words a day, whereas the highest quartile added
about 2.3 words a day. However, by 5th grade, children in the lowest quartile had only reached average
4th-grade level because they had such a small vocabulary in 2nd grade. There is evidence that words are
learned in roughly the same order. The implications of these findings suggest (a) that greater efforts
should be made to foster vocabulary acquisition in the primary years and (b) that a rough vocabulary
curriculum sequence can be identified for the elementary years.

Increasingly, educators are becoming aware of the importance
of vocabulary development as an aspect of successful educational
achievement. For example, Gough and Tunmer's (1986) "simple
view of reading" emphasizes the combined importance of identi-
fying words and understanding language for successful reading.
Catts, Fey, Zhang, and Tomblin (1999) reported that language as
well as phonological problems must be considered when working
with poor readers. Cunningham and Stanovich (1997) reported that
vocabulary assessed in first grade predicted over 30% of reading
comprehension variance in 11th grade. Conversely, recent studies
of early reading intervention such as Pinnell, Lyons, Deford, Bryk,
and Seltzer's (1994) and Gregory, Earl, and O'Donoghue's (1993)
reports on Reading Recovery, and Madden, Slavin, Karweit,
Dolan, and Wasik's (1993) report on the Success for All program
Andrew Biemiller and Naomi Slonim, Institute of Child Study, Univer-
sity of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
This work could not have been undertaken without the financial support
of the Ontario Ministry of Education and the Social Sciences and Human-
ities Research Council of Canada, the encouragement of Jeanne Chall (who
first urged Andrew Biemiller to study vocabulary issues) and our colleague
Robbie Case, the support of Jeremy Anglin and Michael Graves, and
information and help from Joseph O'Rourke. We particularly appreciate
Janet Astington's comments on a draft of this article. Cheryl Zimmerman
spent many, many hours scanning the Living Word Vocabulary into Excel
and hand-correcting many scanning problems. Many graduate students
contributed to the development of the sentence context test format, notably
Hadley Koltun, Rose Nauta, and Amy Sirota. The final version of the test
was refined and administered by Saundra Biemiller, Cathy Boote, Lara
Chebaro, Lisa Harrower, Kelly Heffernan, Cecilia Kwon, Nancy Pilateris,
and Lynn Tan with assistance from numerous other students. Special
thanks must be given to the teachers and children from participating
schools in the Waterloo Catholic District School Board and the Laboratory
School of the Institute of Child Study, University of Toronto. Without their
patience and helpful support, this study could not have been completed.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Andrew
Biemiller, University of Toronto, Institute of Child Study, 45 Walmer
Road, Toronto, Ontario M5R 2X2, Canada. Electronic mail may be sent to
abiemifler@oi.se.utoronto.ca.
498
suggest that although these primary programs were effective at
promoting word identification skills, they had no significant im-
pact on reading comprehension. Some years ago, Becker (1977)
made a similar observation about his own program, DISTAR. He
noted that as children progressed beyond second grade, the vocab-
ulary levels of school texts left some competent "readers" (decod-
ers) unable to successfully comprehend grade-level reading mate-
rial in third or fourth grade. Chall, Jacobs, and Baldwin (1990)
reported similar observations in a working-class sample in the later
elementary years.
Vocabulary development has been of interest since ancient
times. In relatively recent years, there has been considerable de-
bate about the size and rate of development of vocabulary, and
about how vocabulary is acquired (e.g., see Anglin, 1993; Beck &
McKeown, 1990; Curtis, 1987; McKeown & Curtis, 1987; Nagy,
Herman, & Anderson, 1985; Nagy & Herman, 1987; and White,
Graves, & Slater, 1990). Anglin's recent (1993) monograph pro-
vided a particularly careful estimate of vocabulary growth, making
clear distinctions between root words (which must be learned),
derived words (semantic variations of root words), inflections
(syntactic variations), and compounds. Derived, inflected, and
compound words may be understood if the root word is known and
the relevant semantic or syntactic modification is also known.
Thus if plan is understood (as a verb), plan (as a noun), planning,
planned, unplanned, and so on may also be understood. Anglin
reported growth in root word vocabulary from an average of
about 3,100 root words in Grade 1 to about 7,500 root words in
Grade 5.
Anglin reported evidence that children need to learn about twice
as many words as the number of root words, based on observations
of overt derivation of word meanings. We suspect that this exag-
gerates the number of words that must be learned (i.e., what Anglin
calls "psychologically basic" words) and that many derived or
inflected words may be understood directly without any observ-
able process of derivation. In support of this hypothesis, we note
that about two thirds of the derivatives of the root words used in
the studies reported herein are reported as "known" by Dale and
O'Rourke (1981) at the same or younger age level as the level at
 VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT
which the root was identified. (This analysis, conducted by Naomi
Slonim, will be the subject of a separate paper.) Consequently, we
have chosen in this research to focus on the growth of root word
vocabulary.
Many writers—including Chall (1983/1996), Curtis (1980),
Curtis and Longo (1999), and Gough and Tunmer (1986)—have
emphasized the parallel importance of basic reading mechanics
(decoding skills) and a growing vocabulary for increasing reading
or language comprehension. However, although there has been a
renewed emphasis in recent years on insuring the provision of
decoding skills (e.g., Allington & Woodside-Jiron, 1998), there
has been no comparable educational emphasis on the development
of language and vocabulary (Adams, 1990; Becker, 1977; Bie-
miller, 1999b; Graves, Juel, & Graves, 1998). This is surprising
considering the evidence provided by Beck, Perfetti, and Mc-
Keown (1982); McKeown and Curtis (1987); and reviews by Beck
and McKeown (1990); Graves et al. (1998); and Stahl (1999) that
various approaches to enhancing vocabulary have strong effects on
increasing reading comprehension. Note that once students be-
come fluent readers—Chall's Stage 3 and above—researchers
should really be talking about language comprehension rather than
reading comprehension. Prior to this stage, comprehension of oral
language is usually at a higher level than comprehension of printed
language (Curtis, 1980; Sticht & James, 1984).
The role of schooling in vocabulary acquisition has been the
subject of much debate. Early (preliteracy) differences in vocab-
ulary growth are associated with social class (Duncan, Brooks-
Gunn, & Klebanov, 1994; Hart & Risley, 1995; McLloyd, 1998).
Nagy and Herman (1987) argued that much vocabulary acquisition
results from literacy and wide reading. However, obviously much
vocabulary acquisition occurs before children become literate and
before they are reading books that introduce unfamiliar vocabulary
(Becker, 1977). Cantalini (1987) and Morrison, Williams, and
Massetti (1998) both reported that vocabulary acquisition in kin-
dergarten and Grade 1 is little influenced by school experience,
based on the finding that young first graders have about the same
vocabulary (Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test) as old kindergarten
children. Cantalini reported the same result for second grade. On
the other hand, Huttenlocher, Levine, and Vevea (1998) reported
gains of about 10% of words of their test in vocabulary (and other
measures including syntax, concepts, and spatial operations) dur-
ing the 6-month period between October and April (high school
instruction) in contrast with an increase of 3% of test words during
the 6-month period between April and October (kindergarten and
Grade 1, cross-sectional data). The latter study uses a much larger
sample than Cantalini and Morrison et al.'s studies, but a much
more restricted vocabulary test. However, overall we think it
possible that children in kindergarten and Grade 1 are gaining
vocabulary increases, but children start and finish at different
vocabulary levels rather than acquiring a common grade level
vocabulary.
The absolute rate of vocabulary acquisition is a critical question.
As Beck and McKeown (1990) noted in their review of vocabulary
development, if the rate of vocabulary acquisition is smaller than
is commonly assumed, it is possible to think of instructional
approaches to increase vocabulary acquisition. For example, if the
average rate of word acquisition is around two to four root words
a day with the rest coming from morphological extensions, it is
possible to teach or include that many new words in classroom
499
instruction. On the other hand, if the rate of word acquisition is
around seven or eight a day, as Nagy et al. (1985) suggested, it is
hard to imagine a curriculum that could systematically introduce
that many words. Anglin's (1993) data suggest an average gain of
about three root words per day (based on 365 days), or six root
words per school day between Grades 1 and 5. The present study
includes new information on the rate of root word vocabulary
acquisition.
The degree to which words are learned in the same order is a
matter of practical and theoretical interest. If the order of word
learning is highly predictable, it is possible to construct curriculum
materials that ensure introduction to words in a developmentally
useful order. A well-defined sequence of word acquisition is also
of theoretical interest. The data in Dale and O'Rourke's (1981)
Living Word Vocabulary (LWV) imply that there is some ordering
of word learning. However, the data in LWV are basically orga-
nized around age groups rather than around levels of word knowl-
edge in individual children. In previous studies (Biemiller, 1998,
1999a), we found strong Pearson correlations between word means
in different grades, suggesting that the order of difficulty remained
much the same even as overall levels of word knowledge in-
creased. In the present studies, we examine directly the order in
which words are being learned in groups with different levels of
vocabulary knowledge.
To our knowledge, only one relatively comprehensive assess-
ment has been made of words known by children. This is Dale and
O'Rourke's (1981) LWV. In this study, which was carried out over
more than two decades, 44,000 individual word meanings were
tested to determine the grade level at which they were known by
67%-80% of children. In LWV, "known" meant a correct re-
sponse on a three-choice multiple choice test. Words were as-
signed to levels on the basis of the lowest grade at which a sample
of 200 or more children passed the words at the criterion 67%-
80%. Children and adolescents in Grades 4, 6, 8, 10, and 12 were
included as well as college students and adults. Words were sent
out to be tested with children at a particular grade in a number of
schools: "To avoid sectional bias, we sent 50 tests or less of a
single form to a single school district. We tested in all sizes of
school systems—both rural and urban" (Dale & O'Rourke, 1979,
p. 3). If the word fell within the 67%-80% range at that grade
level, it was assigned that level. If the word came in above 80%,
it was tried at a lower grade level, whereas if it came in below
67%, it was tried at a higher level, until the 67%-80% level was
found. However, testing did not go below fourth grade, as the tests
involved reading. Thus there are many words reported above 80%
correct at Level 4, or fourth-grade words. Similarly, many words
are reported below 67% correct at Level 12, meaning that they
were not retested with college students. However, approxi-
mately 30,000 word meanings were reported known by at least
67% of children or adolescents between Grades 4 and 12.
The LWV includes both root words and derived forms. (Gram-
matical inflections were usually only included for irregular forms.)
Part of the current research included a study of the incidence of
root forms in LWV at each level. A Level 2 was created by
including words known by more than 80% of children at Level 4.
One of the advantages of sampling vocabulary from the LWV
levels is that it is possible to estimate the numbers of words known
in a relatively clearly defined and educationally relevant popula-
tion of words. For example, knowing that a child understands 5%
500 BIEMILLER AND SLONIM
of the words in Webster's Third New International Dictionary of
the English Language (1981), as Anglin could determine, gives
teachers relatively little practical guidance in choosing vocabulary
for instruction. Knowing that the same child understands half of
some 2500 Level 2 root words provides substantially more useful
information.
Purposes of This Study
The present study had several purposes. First, we wanted to
determine the numbers of words at each LWV level and to esti-
mate what proportion were root words. Second, we wanted to
examine the validity of LWV's levels in terms of current popula-
tions (i.e., can we use the LWV as a reasonable guide to words
likely to be known at particular levels—or worth learning?) As-
sociated with this is an extension of LWV to Level 2, or second
grade. Third, we wanted to revisit the question of vocabulary
growth rates—of how many root words must be learned per day.
Our fourth goal was to examine the range of individual differences
in vocabulary growth rates as well as group differences between
the normative and advantaged samples. Our final goal was to
determine the degree to which words are learned in a similar
sequence by children with different rates of vocabulary progress.
In this article we describe data on the development of root word
vocabulary from kindergarten to Grade 6. Data from some or all of
these grades are available from three samples: (a) a normative
sample of English-first-language (EFL) children with a wide so-
cioeconomic status (SES) range tested in June, 1999; (b) an ad-
vantaged sample of mostly EFL upper middle SES children in a
university laboratory school in June, 1999; and (c) a second
normative sample of EFL children drawn from the same schools
but given a different sample of words in November, 1999. The
second normative sample was included after some unexpected
results appeared in the first two samples.
General Method
Organizing and Sampling Root Words: Constructing the
Root Word Inventory
The first step in the study was to sort the word meanings in LWV by
levels and percentage correct for each meaning within the levels. This was
done by scanning the entire contents of LWV into an Excel file and sorting
word meanings into levels. A Level 2 was created by including all words
at Level 4 that were known by more than 80% of children tested. Words
known by less than 67% of 12th-grade children were omitted from
Level 12. Data on the six levels are given in Table 1. The words were then
Table 1
Data on Levels in the Living Word Vocabulary
Variable 2 4
Total words 4,374 5,257
Estimated percentage of root words 58 51
Estimated number of root words 2,537 2,681
Estimated number of independent
root words* 2,207 2,333
1
Independent or nonredundant meanings are estimated to be 87% of estimated number of root words.
ordered by difficulty within the level rather than alphabetically. Samples of
100 words were then drawn from each level by taking every xth word
where x = number of words in the level divided by 100.
Each 100-word sample was then categorized according to the five
categories provided by Anglin (1993): root words (monomorphemic
words; e.g., closet, flop), inflected words (grammatical variations; e.g.,
changed, baits), derived words (one root and one or more derivational
affix; e.g., mucky, stillness, talkativeness), literal compounds (words com-
posed of two or more words, one of which is a root word and the other root
or derived; e.g., payday, taxpayer), and idioms (compounds whose mean-
ing cannot be determined from knowledge of the component words, e.g.,
lady's slipper, which is an orchid; eleventh hour, which is a last minute
occurrence). We had 90% agreement in coding words as "root" or not.
Twenty root words were then randomly drawn from each list for use in a
test. About 15% of the words initially randomly selected were discarded as
archaic or unsuitable [e.g., churn, ass (donkey), paraffin (wax used in
canning), hep (knows answers)]. These were replaced with the next root
word from the random list at a similar level of percentage correct as given
in LWV. Short sentences were constructed and pretested for each word.
Two forms of our Root Word Inventory were constructed from the final list
of 20 root words per level. Form A consisted of the odd-numbered words
and their sentences (1, 3, etc.); Form B consisted of the even-numbered
words and their sentences. Thus each form had 10 words per level for a
total of 60 words. One word was deleted from Form A and two from Form
B when we discovered coding problems with these words. (Scorers found
children's responses to three words hard to score. Responses to these three
words have been removed from the calculations.) Both forms were given
to one of our test populations. The correlation of children's scores for the
two forms was .88 (Pearson). Test words, LWV meanings tested, and test
sentences are given in Appendix A. (In Appendix A, words from Forms A
and B, definitions, LWV levels, and test sentences are shown in order of
mean word difficulty.)
Estimating Root Word Vocabulary Size
We had originally thought that we could estimate root word vocabulary
size simply by applying the observed percentage correct at each level to the
estimated number of root words at that level as shown in Table 1. However,
after selecting the root words, we noted that in a number of cases more than
one entry was given for a root word. In some cases, the entries had similar
meanings. For example, the word fish is given as a Level 2 entry meaning
"a water animal" and also as a Level 2 entry meaning "to try to catch a
fish." It appears that most children who know one of these meanings will
also know the other. (The "water animal" was known by 97% of Level 4
children sampled, and "catch a fish" was known by 94%.) In our view,
these items refer to a single root word meaning. We reviewed all of our
sampled LWV root word meanings to see if there were other redundant
meanings at the same level. We determined that the 120 Form A and B
words covered knowledge of 138 separate word meanings—the 120 sam-
pled and 18 other redundant meanings from the same levels. The two
Level
Combined
6 8 10 12 levels
6,750 5,600 4,359 4,162 30,502
38 56 50 45 49
2,565 3,136 2,180 1,854 14,953
2,232 2,728 1,897 1,613 13,010
 VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT 501

meanings offish as given earlier is one example. Additional examples are
jurisdiction at Level 10, given as both "authority" and "legal power";
envelop at Level 8, referring to "surround" and "wrap up"; and buckle at
Level 2, given as "to fasten" and "fastener." There is no clear trend across
the levels, so we have used the overall redundancy figure. Thus if 120
sampled words address 138 LWV meanings, then the overall estimate
of 14,953 root words between Levels 2 and 12 should be reduced to 13,009
nonredundant root words (87% of the total). We applied the same reduction
to estimated root words at each level. This is shown in Table 1. The
reduced estimated number of independent root words at each level was
used to estimate total root word vocabulary known covered in LWV.
The LWV omits some root words tested in Anglin's (1993) study. Of 30
root words in Anglin's vocabulary, 10 were not found in LWV. However,
using data provided by Anglin, we ascertained that many of these omitted
root words were not known by children in Anglin's study. If we examine
the mean number of root words known in the test at each grade, we
find 5.44 in Grade 1, 8.11 in Grade 3, and 13.22 in Grade 5. (These figures
are slightly higher than those in Anglin, 1993, p. 64. In the Anglin
monograph, some scores had been adjusted for multiple choice responses.)
If only words that appear in the LWV are used, we find 5.06, 7.20,
and 10.78 root words, respectively. Thus using LWV words underestimates
total root words known by 8% in Grade 1, 13% in Grade 3, and 22% in
Grade 5. Projected underestimates in the other grades have been interpo-
lated to 5% in kindergarten, 11% in Grade 2, 17% in Grade 4, and 26% in
Grade 6.
Estimated vocabulary at each grade level was first to be determined by
multiplying the estimated number of nonredundant words by percentages
of test words known, and then further adjusting estimated numbers of
words by correcting for LWV underestimates for specific grades, as out-
lined in the preceding paragraph.
Estimating Vocabulary Growth Rates
Once we arrived at estimates of the total number of root words for each
child, we could generate estimated root word vocabulary at each grade
level sampled. This provided a cross-sectional look at the growth of
vocabulary. The estimated rate of vocabulary acquisition per year is simply
the difference between observed vocabulary in the higher grade and that in
the lower grade. Average gains per day were obtained by dividing annual
gains by 365. Similar approaches are taken over longer periods. We can
assume that vocabulary growth begins around age 1. The mean age of
children tested near the end of Grade 2, minus 1 (age at infancy), yields the
number of years of acquisition from infancy to the end of Grade 2 (6.6
acquisition years for children in the two normative samples, 6.9 in the
advantaged sample). The mean years for gaining vocabulary from the end
of Grade 2 to the end of Grade 5, based on mean ages, was 3.1 years for
the normative children (both studies) and 3.0 years for the advantaged
children.
We now turn to describing methodology and reporting basic results from
the three separate studies. We then combine results from the three studies
to address the main questions of this research.
Study 1: First Normative Sample
Children Studied
This study was intended to provide data on the root word
vocabulary of a representative sample of English-speaking chil-
dren from a range of economic levels. Three schools in a mid-sized
Ontario city were included. These drew on children from assisted
housing (about one third of the children in one school and one fifth
in another) and from working-class and middle-class families.
Within each school, we attempted to include eight children in
Grades kindergarten, 1,2, 4, and 5. (Third- and sixth-grade chil-
dren were not included because of a major province-wide testing
program being conducted at the same time with all third- and
sixth-grade children.) The sampling system involved identifying in
each school two boys and two girls in each grade whose birthdays
were closest to March 30th, and those whose birthdays were
closest to Sept. 30. Parents of these children were contacted for
permission to include the children in the study. When permission
was not given, we moved to the child of the same sex with the next
closest birthday to the target. The intent was to identify children
randomly, while ensuring a representation of younger and older
children in the study. In fact, we were able to obtain between 19
and 25 children per grade. Table 2 gives number of children by sex
and mean age by grade in the first normative sample.
Method
Testing reported herein was conducted in May and June of 1999. Testing
was done individually for children in kindergarten through Grade 2. The
investigator introduced herself and said
I'm going to ask you what some words mean. Later, I'll ask you to
read the same words and some others. Some of these words are
common and some aren't. If you want to stop at any time, you can.
I'm going to read you a sentence and then ask you what a word means
in that sentence. You can use words, pointing, or acting to explain the
meaning of that word.
We then gave three examples, including, " 'I bought a new car.' In this
sentence, what does car mean?" We continued with " 'Johnny fell and
broke his arm.' What does arm mean?" If the child had difficulty with these
examples, we would go over them and explain how to answer. (In the arm
example, pointing to one's arm would do.) A final example involved a hard
word: " "The material was translucent.' In this sentence, what does trans-
lucent mean?" This example was given so that we could explain that there
would be words children did not know, and that it was alright to say, "I
don't know." (No children actually knew translucent.) At all levels, nearly
all children could do the first two examples (with help) and were successful
with some items in the test. In kindergarten to Grade 2, the tester wrote
down student explanations for coding later. Because written testing was
used in Grades 4 and 5, no probing was done in oral tests with children in
kindergarten to Grade 3. We would reread a sentence if the child asked us
to, on the assumption that those taking the written test could reread as
needed. In oral testing, children were stopped if they made eight errors at
a level. (There were 10 words at each level, 60 words total.)
In the case of written testing (given to children in Grades 4 and 5), the
instructions were as follows:
Table 2
Normative Sample: Mean Age and Numbers of Cases
by Grade and Gender
Grade
Variable K 1 2 4 5 Total
Age (years) 6.0 7.0 7.8 10.1 11.0
Gender
Boys 11 11 11 13 10 56
Girls 10 8 14 10 10 52
Combined 21 19 25 23 20 108
Note. K = Kindergarten.
502 BIEMILLER AND SLONIM

Read the whole sentence. What does the word in bold mean? Write a
sentence that explains what the word in bold means. It's OK to write
"I don't know" if you don't know what the word means. Some of
these words are used by students in high school, so we don't expect
you to know all of the words you see.
The examples were printed with sample answers (including "I don't know"
for translucent). Written testing was conducted in groups of 6 to 10
children at a time. If a child experienced difficulty reading the sentences,
we would read them to the child. (Very few children required this assis-
tance.) In a prior study (Biemiller, 1998), we had found that there was no
difference in levels of word knowledge in Grades 4 and 5 when assessed
in oral versus written (with reading assistance) formats.
Each response was scored 1, .5, or 0. A score of 1 meant that in the
scorer's judgement, the child knew the word well enough to be able to
follow a story in which the test sentence could appear. (That is, they would
not lose the meaning of the story because of this word.) A score of 0 meant
that in the scorer's judgement, the child did not know the word this well.
A score of .5 meant that the scorer was unsure of whether the child knew
the word well enough to understand a story containing the sentence.
Scoring guides for each word were developed and are available from the
authors. Two raters scored all children in one class. The total scores for
each child by each rater correlated at r = .98. For the final data presented
in this article, scoring was done by three trained raters. All questionable
cases were resolved together.
Results
The percentages of words were larger in the higher grades
(Table 3). The overall gain was significant, F(4, 98) = 58.29, p <
.001, as were differences between grades of 18% or more (Duncan,
.05). Note the relatively large gain between Grades 1 and 2. There
were no significant sex differences, F(l, 98) = 0.67, ns, and no
significant interaction with sex, F(4, 98) = 1.60, ns. The unusually
large increase in percentage of words learned between Grades 1
and 2 (from 17% to 35% of all words tested), combined with the
relatively low rate of vocabulary acquisition after Grade 2 (from
35% to 57% of all words tested, or about 7% a year) led us to
consider a replication. This was carried out in November, 1999.
The percentage of words was lower in the higher LWV levels
(Table 3). Overall, level differences were significant, F(5, 490) =
367.58, p < .001. The Duncan range is 6% (Duncan, .05). There
was little difference between Levels 4 and 6 and between Levels 8
and 10. There was a significant interaction between level and
grade, F(20, 490) = 6.55, p < .01. This reflects variation in
differences between levels at different grades and particularly the
fact that in Grades 4 and 5, Level 6 proved slightly easier than
Level 4.
Study 2: Advantaged Sample
Study 2 was intended to provide data on the root word vocab-
ulary knowledge of advantaged upper-middle-class children at-
tending a university laboratory school, in contrast to the normative
population of Study 1. Given the evidence of large differences in
vocabulary and vocabulary acquisition opportunities associated
with social class before school (e.g., Hart & Risley, 1995), we
thought it useful to look at vocabulary growth in a highly advan-
taged sample. In addition, we were able to administer both forms
of our Root Word Inventory to children in Study 2, providing
information on reliability.
Children Studied
Children in Study 2 attended a private, laboratory school at the
University of Toronto. A tuition of $4,000 is charged at this
school, limiting the sample to children from relatively affluent
families. (There is no test criterion for admission. Children are
randomly selected from applicants, subject to diversity and sex
distribution constraints.) Between 20 and 22 children per grade
were available from junior kindergarten (4-year-old children) to
Grade 6. Table 4 shows the mean age and distribution of boys and
girls by grade.

Table 3
Normative Sample: Mean Percentage Correct by Grade and Level for Form A (Study 1)

Word level
Age
Grade lonths) 2 4 6 8 10 12 M

M 21 72.2 46 19 7 3 0 0 12
SD 2.8 21 14 12 6 0 0 7
M 22 84.0 56 23 16 3 3 0 17
SD 3.0 24 16 16 9 9 0 10

M 22 93.4 78 44 37 28 22 3 35
SD 5.5 15 21 19 17 16 5 13

M 23 121.6 82 50 52 42 35 10 45
SD 4.1 18 24 22 15 19 13 14

M 20 131.8 94 65 70 48 44 21 57
SD 3.3 8 21 16 16 12 14 10
Weighted average (K—5) 71 40 36 25 21 7 33

Note. Grade 3 children were not tested. K = kindergarten.

 VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT 503

Table 4
Ages and Gender of the Advantaged Sample: Study 2

Grade

Variable JK SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total

Age (years) 4.9 6.1 6.9 7.9 9.0 9.9 10.9 11.8
Gender
Boys 10 10 11 11 12 12 11 10 87
Girls 12 10 11 8 10 10 10 10 81
All 22 20 22 19 22 22 21 20 168

Note. JK = junior kindergarten; SK = senior kindergarten.

Method that in both groups, the size of the difference between Levels 2
and 4 was larger in the lower grades, whereas the size of the
In this study, both forms of the Root Word Inventory were used in difference between Levels 6 and 8 was larger in the later grades for
Grades 1 to 6. Only Form A was used with junior (4-year-old) and senior
Form A and the earlier grades for Form B. Overall, there were
(5-year-old) kindergarten children. Procedures were the same as in Study 1.
effectively four levels: 2, 4/6, 8/10, and 12.
Most testing was done in June, 1999. However, because of schedule
problems, Grade 2 children were tested on Form B in September (when
they were just beginning Grade 3) rather than June. Similarly, six Grade 3 Study 3: Second Normative Sample
children were tested in September rather than June. There was no evidence
that children tested in September had higher scores. Study 3 was conducted to see whether the anomalous large gains
observed in both the normative and advantaged samples in
Grade 2, followed by relatively slower gains in Grades 4 and 5,
Results
could be replicated. At the same time, it was possible in Study 3 to
The advantaged sample was tested on two forms of 60 words include third- and sixth-grade children from a normative sample.
each in Grades 1 to 6. The two forms yielded similar results: The There were two other changes. One was the use of oral testing at
Pearson correlation between children's percentage-correct scores all grade levels, to see whether the lower rates of gain after Grade 2
on Form A and Form B was .88 (n — 126). might have been due to use of written testing. The other was to
We again found that percentages of words known were higher in modify the conditions for stopping testing. In Studies 1 and 2, oral
higher grades (Table 5). For combined forms (Grades 1-6), the testing was stopped if a child missed 8 out of 10 items in a level.
overall gain was significant, F(5, 114) = 16.73, p < .001. Mean We thought this might have led to underestimating the perfor-
differences of about 19% were different using the Duncan .05 mance of kindergarten and Grade 1 children (although Grade 2
criterion. Note again the very large gain between Grades 1 and 2. children were tested using the same rule). In Study 3, all children
There was no significant sex difference. The interaction between were tested until they missed 10 consecutive items.
grade and sex was significant, F(5, 114) = 2.56, p < .03. This
reflects the very low achievement of the Grade 4 boys. Children Studied
Form A was somewhat easier than Form B, at 49% versus 45%
correct overall, F(l, 114) = 38.63, p < .001. There was no The children were drawn from the same three schools used for
significant interaction between grade and form, F(5, 114) = 1.79, Study 1. No Study 1 children were included in the Study 3 sample.
p = .12. There was a low-order interaction between form and sex,
F{\, 114) = 3.51, p = .06. This reflects the fact that girls did
slightly better on Form B compared with boys. Table 5
The mean percentage correct at each Dale and O'Rourke level Mean Percentage Correct by Gender and Form:
by each grade are shown in Table 6. Although scores were notice- Advantaged Sample
ably higher than the normative sample in the earlier grades, the
pattern was similar, with relatively little difference between Lev- Grade
Gender and Grades
els 4 and 6 and between Levels 8 and 10. (Direct comparisons form JK SK 1 1-6
between the samples are discussed later.) Using a repeated-
measures analysis of variance (ANOVA), differences between All children 31 43 51 47 55 58 47
levels were highly significant, F(5, 760) = 734.01, p < .001 for Form A 13 23 31 46 53 50 57 59 49
Form B 30 40 48 44 53 56 45
Form A, and F(5, 570) = 517.84, p < .001 for Form B. For Form Boys, all 32 43 51 39 53 59 47
A, the Duncan .05 range was 3% compared with 4% for Form B. Form A 13 20 32 47 54 42 55 62 49
There was the same pattern of significant differences seen with Form B 32 39 47 36 51 56 44
Form A except that Level 12 was not significantly lower than the Girls, all 29 43 51 57 57 57 49
Form A 13 29 45 52 59 59 57 50
preceding levels. There were significant Grade X Level interac- Form B 41 54 57
29 49 54 47
tions, F(35, 760) = 6.85, p < .01 for Form A, and F(25,
570) = 5.04, p < .01 for Form B. Inspection of Table 7 suggests Note. JK = junior kindergarten; SK = senior kindergarten.
504 BIEMILLER AND SLONIM

Table 6 Words Tested

Advantaged Sample: Percentage Correct by Mean and Level
for Forms A and B Form B of the Root Word Inventory was used. This form was
constructed at the same time as Form A, using every other word
Word level generated in sampling. Two words were changed from the version
Age used in Study 2 because of ambiguities in scoring the original
Grade (months) 2 4 6 8 10 12 M items.
JK (n = 22)
Form A Method
M 58.7 40 19 12 4 2 0 13
SD 3.6 21 14 14 7 7 0 9 Procedures were the same for all Study 3 children as those described for
SK (n = 20) kindergarten to Grade 2 in Study 1, except that testing was not stopped
Form A until a child made 10 consecutive nonresponses. In other words, all
M 72.7 70 31 24 12 3 0 23 children were tested individually and orally. The test took approxi-
SD 3.5 19 14 18 11 8 0 9 mately 30 min per child.
1 (n = 22)
Form A
M 82.8 77 46 34 19 6 3 31 Results
SD 3.0 20 17 18 13 12 7 11
FormB As shown in Table 8, the percentage of correct responses were
M 80 41 39 11 7 4 30 similar to those in Study 1. Overall, grade differences were sig-
SD 16 20 17 11 14 9 11 nificant, F(6, 142) = 43.53, p < .001. Sex differences were not
2 (n = 22)
significant nor was the interaction between grade and sex. The
Form A
M 94.8 94 58 52 34 27 11 46 largest grade-to-grade gain was again seen between Grades 1 and 2
SD 2.6 9 19 23 17 15 12 13 (from 21% to 37% correct). Overall, in comparing grades, differ-
Form B ences of more than 15% were significant (Duncan, .05). Changes
M 85 57 52 23 15 7 40 in test procedure may have slightly increased observed vocabulary
SD 11 17 15 14 19 10 19
levels in kindergarten (12% in Study 1 versus 17% in Study 3) and
3 (« = 22)
Form A Grade 1 (17% vs. 21%). However, these changes did not eliminate
M 107.9 98 66 59 41 37 17 53 the unusually large gains seen between Grades 1 and 2 (35% in
SD 4.2 4 21 15 12 23 15 11 Study 1 vs. 37% in Study 3). There was also no evidence that oral
Form B testing led to higher estimates of vocabulary. In fact, the level
M 88 62 56 29 28 22 48
reached by Grade 5 is slightly lower than that seen in Study 1,
SD 11 16 9 16 23 19 11
4 (n = 22) consistent with the slightly lower levels seen on Form B in Study 2
Form A and with the fact that these children were assessed in November
118.6 88 67 59 42 36 11 50 rather than June.
SD 3.7 16 25 25 22 21 13 16
Form B
Results mostly similar to Study 1 were seen when comparing
M 78 61 50 26 29 23 44 levels. Overall, differences between levels were highly significant,
SD 14 20 17 17 20 22 15 F(5, 710) = 829, p < .001, as was the interaction between levels
5 (n = 21) and grade, F(30, 710) = 6.52, p < .001. The Duncan range for
Form A levels is 3%. Unlike Study 1, Level 6 did differ significantly from
M 130.2 94 73 71 41 45 17 57
SD 3.6 4 17 15 16 17 15 10
Level 4. Otherwise, the pattern was similar, with Level 8 and
Form B Level 10 being of similar difficulty.
M 87 72 52 38 43 24 53
SD 13 13 13 13 14 18 10
6 (n = 20)
Comparisons Involving All Three Studies
Form A In this section, we are going to return to the main questions of
M 141.8 93 77 75 50 44 17 59
SD 5.0 7 18 20 18 21 11 12 this research (as discussed in the introduction).
Form B
M 85 69 57 48 49 31 56 Table 7
SD 9 21 19 19 10 17 12 Second Normative Sample: Mean Age and Numbers of Cases by
Average (Grades 1-6) Grade and Gender
Form A 91 65 58 38 33 13 49
Form B 84 60 51 29 28 19 45 Grade
Note. Grades JK and SK children were not given Form B. JK = junior Variable K 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total
kindergarten; SK = senior kindergarten.
Age (years) 5.5 6.5 7.4 8.5 9.5 10.5 11.6
Gender
Sampling was again based on ages, in this case starting with Boys 11 8 14 13 11 11 11 79
Girls 11 10 11 16 7 13 9 77
birthdates in January and June, and seeking 4 boys and 4 girls at Grade, all 22 18 25 29 18 24 20 156
each grade level in each school. Table 7 gives the mean age
numbers of cases by sex for each grade in Study 3. Note. K = kindergarten.
 VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT 505

Table 8 Overall, these data are generally consistent with values expected
Second Normative Sample: Mean Percentage Correct by Grade from LWV. However, inspection of Appendixes B and C makes it
and Level (Study 3) clear that many individual words are known at substantially higher
or lower values than those predicted by LWV.
Word level These data also support Level 2 as based on LWV words at
Age Level 4 that were known by more than 80% of children in the
Grade n (months) 2 4 6 8 10 12 M
LWV norming. Grade 2 children were 76%-78% correct on the
SK Level 2 words in the two normative studies. (We do not have data
M 11 65.6 62 17 14 3 4 3 17 on multiple choice meanings at Grade 2.) At Grade 4, these
SD 3.8 18 13 12 7 6 5 8 Level 2 words would be expected around 87%. In fact, we ob-
1 served scores of 81% in both forms.
18 78.2 68 28 18 3 8 1 21
M Whereas in general, words from the higher levels proved to be
SD 2.5 21 14 12 5 11 3 7
2 more difficult, it is not reasonable to expect that children in a grade
M 25 89.0 76 54 38 19 24 11 37 will know all words up to that level. Furthermore, Levels 4 and 6
SD 3.6 17 17 15 12 15 10 10 were very similar in difficulty, as were Levels 8 and 10. Thus
3
M 29 102.2 81 53 43 21 26 12 39 although LWV provides a better guide to identifying vocabulary
SD 4.3 13 17 15 12 14 9 10 words for curriculum than any other source, we will see that a
4 more precise sequence may exist than that given in LWV.
M 18 114.4 81 60 52 24 30 17 44
SD 5.0 11 20 16 11 15 10 10
5
Comparing Vocabulary Growth in the Three Studies
M 24 126.0 88 73 54 33 31 15 49
SD 3.5 11 12 12 17 14 8 8 Percentages correct by grade for both forms for all populations
6 are shown in Figure 1. In all groups, there was an unusually large
M 20 138.7 90 74 57 41 40 17 53 gain between Grades 1 and 2. Between the end of Grade 2 and
SD 3.0 10 18 15 18 16 10 12 Grade 6, we found relatively slower growth in root word vocab-
Weighted
ulary, with the advantaged children starting at somewhat higher
average 81 57 44 24 27 12 41
levels.
Note. SK = senior kindergarten. The estimated root word vocabulary by grade is shown in Table
9 for both forms and both normative and advantaged children. In
addition, combined estimates based on Forms A and B are also
How Valid Is the LWV? shown. Although the advantaged sample had a 20% larger root
word vocabulary at the end of Grade 2, the normative sample
We examined the validity of LWV in two ways. First, we related
appeared to have "caught up" by the end of Grade 5, the difference
observed word accuracy to LWV levels. We calculated the mean
then being only 3%.
scores for each word in our test by grade. These are given in
Appendixes B and C. We combined these for Grades 1, 2, 4, and 5 At this point we consider gains from 1 year of age (when
(for which we have data from all studies) and correlated these vocabulary begins to be acquired) to the end of Grade 2, and gains
word scores with LWV levels. For the normative samples, the
Pearson correlations were .73 for Form A and .68 for Form B. For
the advantaged sample, the correlations between combined
Grade 1, 2,4, and 5 word means and LWV levels was .79 for Form
A and .72 for Form B. Overall, LWV word meaning ratings
account for 46% to 62% of observed root word inventory score
variance.
Second, we looked at the validity of LWV in terms of absolute
levels of performance on particular levels in specified grades.
LWV words assigned a given level were reported to be "passed"
by children in that grade at an average of 73% on three-alternative
multiple choice items. We can compare mean root word inventory
scores for the normative sample at each level with the percentage NORM.A
expected for children in that grade when the reported mean per- NORM.B

centage is adjusted for guessing: Corrected percent correct = »OV_A

observed percent correct — [percent error/(number of alterna-
tives — 1)]. This adjustment brings the expected level score down
to 60%. When giving definitions, Grade 4 normative sample
children from Study 1 actually were 50% correct on Level 4 words
on Form A, whereas those from Study 3 were 60% correct on
Level 4 words on Form B. There were no Grade 6 children for
Form A, but Grade 5 children were 70% correct on Level 6,
whereas Grade 6 children in Study 3 were 57% correct on Level 6.
»DV_B
Figure 1. Percentage correct by form for normative and advantaged samples.
NORM_A = normative population, Form A vocabulary data (Study
1); NORM_B = normative population, Form B vocabulary data (Study 3);
ADV_A = advantaged population, Form A vocabulary data (Study
2); A D V B = advantaged population, Form B vocabulary data (Study 2).
506 BIEMILLER AND SLONIM

Table 9
Estimated Vocabulary, by Sample and Form

Normative population Advantaged population

Grade Study 1, Form A Study 3, Form B M Study 2, Form A Study 2, Form B M

K
M 1,699 2,349 2,924 3,173
SD 916 1,134 1,201
M 2,371 2,967 2,669 4,314 4,275 4,295
SD 1,341 984 1,576 1,477
M 5,048 5,301 5,175 6,591 5,722 6,157
SD 1,829 1,511 1,815 1,492

M 5,759 7,805 6,988 7,397

SD 1,492 1,695 1,677

M 6,889 6,699 6,794 7,569 6,758 7,164

SD 2,185 1,506 2,441 2,254

M 9,038 7,784 8,411 9,024 8,345 8,685

SD 1,653 1,246 1,513 1,621

M 8,737 9,736 9,248 9,492

SD 1,903 2,040 1,934

Note. Vocabulary is estimated by multiplying the percentage of words known for each form and grade
by 13,010 and then further adjusting the total obtained by 1.05 (kindergarten), 1.08 (Grade 1), 1.10 (Grade
2), 1.13 (Grade 3), 1.17 (Grade 4), 1.22 (Grade 5), and 1.26 (Grade 6) to allow for words not included in the
Living Word Vocabulary but known by children at different grades, based on Anglin (1993). K = kindergarten.

during Grades 3-5. Gains per day for these two periods are shown
in Table 10. The overall conclusion is that children from the
normative sample appear to acquire root words at an average rate
of 2.2 root words per day from 1 year of age to the end of Grade 2
and a greater rate—2.9 words per day—during Grades 3-5.
The advantaged sample appears to have gained root words more
rapidly from infancy to Grade 2 (2.4 words per day). After
Grade 2, the advantaged sample actually appears to gain words
more slowly through Grade 5 (2.3 words per day).
Individual Differences: Vocabulary Growth by Quartiles
The quartile sample sizes in the three studies are relatively small
when taken grade by grade. However, we have constructed a table
summarizing averaged estimated vocabulary scores (combining
data from Forms A and B for the normative and advantaged
groups) for children in each vocabulary quartile in Grades 1 to 5
(Table 11). Daily gains in root word vocabulary from infancy to
the testing age in Grade 2 were estimated by dividing the vocab-
ulary in Grade 2 by (mean age - 1) and then dividing the average

Table 10
Growth in Estimated Root Word Vocabulary: Infancy to Grade 2 and Grade 3 to Grade 5

Normative population Advantaged population

Age 1 (infancy) to Grade 3 to Age 1 (infancy) to Grade 3 to

Variable Grade 2 Grade 5 Grade 2 Grade 5

Total gain 5,175 3,236 6,157 2,528

Years of gaina 6.6 3.1 6.9 3.0
Annual gain 784 1,044 892 843
Daily gain in root words 2.2 2.9 2.4 2.3

Note- This data is based on data in Table 9. Vocabulary is estimated by multiplying the percentage of words
known for each form and grade by 13,010 and then further adjusting the total obtained by 1.05 (kindergar-
ten), 1.08 (Grade 1), 1.10 (Grade 2), 1.13 (Grade 3), 1.17 (Grade 4), 1.22 (Grade 5), and 1.26 (Grade 6) to allow
for words not included in the Living Word Vocabulary but known by children at different grades, based on
Anglin (1993).
* Years of gain equals mean age in Grade 2 minus 1 for infancy to Grade 2, and mean age in Grade 5 minus mean
age in Grade 2 for Grade 3 to Grade 5.
 VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT 507

Table 11
Estimated Vocabulary by Quartile Group and Grade for Normative and Advantaged Samples
Based on Combined Data From Forms A and B

0%-25% 26%-50% 51%-75% 76<ifc-100% Average

Grade Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv

1 1,122 2,425 2,219 3,700 3,106 4,716 4,030 6,367 2,669 4,295
2 3,000 4,491 4,838 5,366 5,787 6,304 7,129 8,132 5,175 6,157
4 4,293 4,045 6,071 6,664 7,476 7,912 9,083 9,980 6,794 7,164
5 6,614 6,888 8,006 7,924 8,777 9,094 10,065 10,749 8,411 8,685
Infancy-Grade 2 a :
gain/day 1.3 1.8 2.0 2.1 2.4 2.4 3.2 3.2 2.2 2.4
Grade 3-5":
gain/day 3.0 2.1 2.9 2.4 2.5 2.8 2.3 2.4 2.9 2.3

Note. Sample size is about 10 children per normative quartile group and 5 children per advantaged quartile group. Estimates based on data in Table 9.
Vocabulary is estimated by multiplying the percentage of words known for each form and grade by 13,010 and then further adjusting the total obtained
by 1.05 (Kindergarten), 1.08 (Grade 1), 1.10 (Grade 2), 1.13 (Grade 3), 1.17 (Grade 4), 1.22 (Grade 5), and 1.26 (Grade 6) to allow for words not included
in the Living Word Vocabulary but known by children at different grades, based on Anglin (1993). Norm = normative sample; Adv = advantaged sample.
a
Years of gain equals mean age in Grade 2 minus 1 for infancy to Grade 2, and mean age in Grade 5 minus mean age in Grade 2 for Grade 3 to Grade 5.
Ages for specific quartiles were used.

annual gain by 365 days. Daily gains in root word vocabulary from
Grade 2 to Grade 5 were estimated by dividing the difference
between estimated vocabulary at the end of Grade 2 and vocabu-
lary at the end of Grade 5 by (mean age in Grade 5 — mean age
in Grade 2) and then dividing this value by 365 days. Some
surprising results can be seen in Table 11. The observed differ-
ences between the highest and lowest vocabulary quartiles in
Grade 5 were about the same size as in Grade 2. (This conclusion
is based on cross-sectional data and is thus somewhat suspect.)
Overall, the average magnitude of difference between the highest
and lowest quartiles was around 3,900 root words in Grade 2 and
was slightly smaller in Grade 5 (3,700 root words). (The difference
between the highest and lowest quartiles was greater in Grade 4
and differed more between the normative and advantaged samples:
4,800 for normative and 5,900 for advantaged.)
achievement group. Mean scores for each of these groups of words
were calculated for each ability group of children.
Evidence can be seen in Figure 2 that words are learned in a
roughly fixed order and that at any given level of overall word
knowledge there are two or three deciles of root words at the
25%-74% correct range. The groups of children knowing only
3%-10% and ll%-20% of all words in the test mainly knew
words from the first two or three sets of words (from the best
known decile, the second best known decile, etc.). The group with
knowledge of 45% of words overall knew over 75% percent of
words in the first four deciles of words. Those knowing 55% or
65% of the words knew over 75% of the first five or six deciles of
words, respectively. Overall, these descriptive data strongly sug-
lee 1*=^

Sequence of Word Difficulty

_
The mean percentage correct for each word in Forms A and B • \ \

by children in each available grade for the normative and advan- \ > \ ' - - \ \
x \ \
taged samples are given in Appendixes B and C. In both appen- \ \

•V \ \
dixes, the words were ordered by average difficulty in Grades 1 - \ \

\
\ \ \
to 5 (omitting Grade 3) because data were available for these \

grades in all samples. Pearson correlations between word means in . \

\ \
\
\
GRP65
different grades and populations are given in Appendixes D and E. \ \ ;
^ \
6RP55
Correlations between average word means for the normative and \ \ \ \ \
GRP45
advantaged population were .96 for Form A and .91 for Form B. \ »--
\
v GRP35
\ \
\
In general, these correlations imply that children are learning N GRP25
words in largely the same order. Data in support of this conclusion GRP15

are presented in the next section. GRP»5

1 Z 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Within each 58- or 59-word form, each group of 6 words
represents a decile of 1,300 of the 13,000 estimated Level 2 to Rord D e c i l e Group

Level 12 nonredundant root words in LWV, ranging from the

easiest to the hardest. (Only 5 words were used to estimate deciles
in the cases of the first decile for Form A and the first and last
deciles for Form B.) Achievement groups were based on overall
performance on the vocabulary test: 0%-10%, ll%-20%, and so
forth. Children from different grades could be included in the same
Figure 2. Percentage of words known at each cumulative level of vocab-
ulary for vocabulary ability groups from 5% of total vocabulary to 65% of
total vocabulary. Children knew the following percentages of words tested:
GRP05 = 0%-9%; GRP15 = 10%-19%; GRP25 = 20%-29%; GRP35 =
30%-39%; GRP45 = 40%-49%; GRP55 = 50%-59%; GRP65 = 60%-
508 BIEMILLER AND SLONIM

gest that children are acquiring vocabulary in a relatively predict- culty (ranging from the third to eighth deciles in word difficulty).
able order. The numbers of words from each of Dale and O'Rourke's levels in
each decile of observed word difficulty in our Studies 1 and 3 are
Discussion given in Table 12. Words from the middle deciles incorporate
words from Level 4 to Level 10. The fifth to sixth deciles of word
There are four main findings of interest from our research. difficulty included predominantly words from Dale and
First, the data showed a strong relationship between average O'Rourke's Levels 4 and 6, whereas the eighth and ninth deciles
knowledge of words in our study and LWV levels, with over 52% of difficulty predominantly included words from Levels 8 and 10.
of average word score variance associated with LWV levels in the Deciles 4 and 7 included words from many LWV levels. We
normative sample and 62% of average score variance associated suggest two reasons why LWV levels have limited value for
with LWV levels in the advantaged sample. This provides sub- identifying a curriculum vocabulary sequence. First, children were
stantial evidence of the validity of Dale and O'Rourke's (1981) ordered by grade rather than vocabulary achievement level. As can
work for current populations. be seen in Appendixes F and G, children in a given grade were in
Second, in the normative population, we estimate that on aver- at least three achievement groups. Thus, grade levels are weak
age, children had acquired about 5,200 root words by the end of indicators of whether a word will be known. Second, use of three
Grade 2, or about 2.2 words per day from 1 year of age. During alternative multiple choice items in LWV allowed fairly frequent
Grades 3 to 5, children in the normative sample gained an aver- guessing of correct responses. Finally, in general, we believe that
age 3,200 additional root words, or about 2.9 words per day. In the our assessment of word meaning is more accurate than multiple
advantaged population, more root words had been acquired by the choice data. However, it is possible that in some cases our test
end of Grade 2—6,200 words, or 2.4 words per day. However, sentences may have been unreasonably easy or difficult.
after Grade 2 the advantaged children gained an additional 2,500, For practical purposes, children in the third and fourth grades
or about 2.3 words per day by Grade 5. might focus on root words from Level 4 and 6 words and encoun-
Third, a comparison of quartile groups in different grades indi- ter some from Level 8 and 10 words. In Grades 5 and 6, children
cates that large differences in root word vocabulary had occurred might focus on words from Levels 8 and 10, while continuing to
by Grade 2, with the mean for the lowest quartile being 4,100 less encounter some additional Level 4 and 6 words. This is based on
than the mean for the highest quartile in the normative sample the percentages of words known at different levels in Studies 1
and 3,600 less in the advantaged sample. Most differences between and 3. The problem is determining which words from given levels
children with relatively low vocabulary compared with those with should be used. Unfortunately, we can only suggest common sense
relatively high vocabulary had occurred by the end of Grade 2. as one reviews words from different levels that occur in books
After Grade 2, the rate of word acquisition varied from 2.1 to 3.0 used with children in different grades. We suggest keeping track of
root words per day, with lower quartile normative children gaining what words have been introduced (in text and with definitions as
the most between Grades 3 and 5. needed). By Grade 6, have most of the Level 4 and 6 words been
Fourth, the study shows that individual words are known in introduced? Have perhaps 50% of the Level 8 and 10 words been
much the same order in all grades from kindergarten to Grade 5 introduced? In total, this would involve introducing about 6,900
(except that there are a number of words not known at all in root words (based on Table 1). However, even children in the low
kindergarten and Grade 1). This implies that words are being quartile knew 3,000 words by the end of Grade 2, including
learned in a fairly fixed order. Examination of words known by roughly 1,000 words above Level 2. To bring the lowest quartile to
specific vocabulary achievement groups further supports the view
that words are learned in roughly the same order. Thus we can
predict roughly which words a child is likely to learn next on the Table 12
basis of the total number of words known by that child. Numbers of Words by Word Difficulty Deciles by Dale and
Several points are discussed in this section, including (a) limi- O'Rourke's Levels: Data From Combined Forms A and B
tations to using LWV levels for sequencing vocabulary curricu- for the Normative Population
lum, (b) the observed rapid increase in vocabulary in Grade 2, (c)
the declining difference between the normative and advantaged Level
populations, (d) the significance of individual differences before Decile 2 4 6 8 10 12 Total
and after Grade 2, and (e) the significance of a consistent sequence
of word acquisition. Educational implications are also discussed, 0%-10% 8 1 1 0 0 0 10
including (a) the implications of differences in the number of ll%-20% 7 3 2 0 0 0 12
21%-30% 4 5 1 2 0 0 12
words learned by Grade 2, (b) the implications of vocabulary size 31%^K)% 0 1 3 2 5 1 12
and gains after Grade 2, and (c) the educational implications of the 41%-50% 1 2 5 2 2 0 12
sequence of word acquisition. 51%-60% 0 5 3 2 1 1 12
61%-70% 0 2 2 0 3 5 12
71%-80% 0 1 2 4 4 1 12
Limitations to Using LWV Levels for Sequencing 81%-90% 0 0 1 4 4 3 12
Vocabulary Curriculum 91%-100% 0 0 0 3 1 7 11
All 20 20 20 19 20 18 117
As can be seen in Appendix A, words ordered by difficulty as
observed in all of our studies do not correspond closely to Dale and Note. Three words were omitted because they were changed with differ-
O'Rourke's levels, especially in the middle range of word diffi- ent samples.
 VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT
average levels, they would need to pick up another 1,500 words a
year. As seen in Table 11, cross-sectional data suggest that chil-
dren in the lowest normative quartile gained about 900 words a
year during Grades 3 to 6. What is needed is an increase of 600
root words a year over what we see now. This conclusion is based
on small samples and should only be seen as suggestive. However,
the present state of the art includes no estimates of actual numbers
of root words needed and no guidance on what words might be
included.
The Observed Rapid Increase in Vocabulary in Grade 2
In three samples, we have found a rapid increase in vocabulary
in Grade 2. Other researchers have not reported unusually large
gains in Grade 2. (An exception may be White et al. (1990), who
found large gains between Grades 1 and 2 and between 2 and 3.)
What might account for this finding? Three possible answers are
discussed.
Methodology. Our method requires children to give word
meanings orally for words presented in a sentence context. (This
method or variants of it have been used with adults; e.g., Hazen-
berg and Hulstijn, 1996). We are not aware of other instances
where this "sentence context" approach has been used with young
children. Could children simply become much more able to give
verbal descriptions of word meanings in Grade 2, as part of the
general cognitive changes known at this age? Note that somewhat
different words seem to be being mastered in Grade 2 by children
in the normative and advantaged samples. (See Appendixes B and
C.) We are currently undertaking a study comparing vocabulary
levels as assessed by Peabody picture vocabulary methodology
and levels as assessed by sentence context methods. We will be
contrasting children's ability to identify words using multiple
pictured alternatives with a sentence approach with the same
Peabody items.
Reading. Clearly one difference is that by the end of Grade 2,
most children are reading to some degree. We believe that it is
possible that when encountering an unfamiliar word while reading,
students may be able to pause and consider meanings in a way that
they cannot when hearing unfamiliar words in context. However,
if reading alone explained the gains in Grade 2, we would expect
continued relatively large gains in Grades 3 to 6. This is simply not
the case.
Cognitive-developmental change. Age 7 has long been rec-
ognized as a change point in human development (e.g., Case,
1985; Flavell, 1992; Piaget, 1971). Following Case's (1985, 1992)
cognitive-developmental theory, which emphasizes the role of
increasing working memory capacity, we believe it is possible that
around age 7, children become more capable of asking questions
about words they do not know. (We will elaborate on this point in
a forthcoming paper.) There is evidence (Beals, 1997) that in
conversations, children 5 and younger rarely ask about words they
don't understand. (Conversely, any parent knows that young chil-
dren often ask about objects and actions for which they don't have
word; e.g., "What's that?" or "What are you doing?") Using an
interview procedure with Grade 5 and 6 children, Biemiller
(1999a) found that children report that most words recently ac-
quired were learned either as a result of asking about them or of
adult-initiated instruction. We hypothesize that increased cognitive
capacity at age 7 may make inquiring about words easier. Briefly,
509
we suggest that increased working memory capacity may allow a
child to attend to problems with words without having to "forget
about" the story context. Increased capacity may also make learn-
ing words from adult instruction easier. This is a hypothesis that
can be investigated relatively easily.
The Declining Difference Between the Normative and
Advantaged Populations During the Elementary Years
By the end of Grade 2, the advantaged children had about 20%
more root words (see Table 11). (The difference was larger in
Grade 1 and kindergarten, but that is suspect for the reasons just
discussed.) The early large difference presumably reflects the
effects of an advantaged environment and possibly greater expe-
rience with defining or explaining words. As described in Hart and
Risley's (1995) book on the experiences of young American
children, advantaged children are exposed to many more words
than average or disadvantaged children. They participate in more
complex verbal discussions. It appears that these differences in
experience lead to marked differences in vocabulary development.
However, there also appears to be a "catch-up" process underway
during the elementary school years, with less advantaged and
lower quartile children adding root word vocabulary somewhat
more rapidly than their advantaged peers during the Grade 2 to
Grade 5 period. By Grade 5 there was no meaningful difference
between the normative and advantaged groups in estimated root
word vocabulary (3%).
It is possible that if more words known largely by college-
educated people were included (as was the case in Anglin's study
from 1993), greater differences between the samples would have
appeared. It is also possible that if morphologically complex words
were included, differences in favor of the advantaged sample—or
the highest quartiles in both populations—would have appeared.
However, at present it appears that in root word growth there is a
definite "catch-up" phenomenon, with normal children catching up
to advantaged children. The critical factor in this catch-up is the
apparent relatively lower rate of root word acquisition in the
middle elementary years by the advantaged population in our
study. It is possible that this finding is unique to the school studied
or that the additional words being acquired by these advantaged
children are simply not those tested here.
The Significance of Individual Differences Before and
After Grade 2
Although there appears to be a catch-up between advantaged
and normative populations as a whole, the difference between the
highest and lowest quartile groups remains much more constant
between Grades 2 and 5. If children of differing vocabulary size
can acquire similar numbers of words after Grade 2, it seems likely
that they could acquire new words at a similar rate earlier. How-
ever before Grade 2, as Becker (1977) observed, there is little
effort to introduce hundreds of new words in the primary grades.
The Significance of a Consistent Sequence of Word
Acquisition
There is a marked similarity in mean scores for words in the
different populations and grades when ability and word difficulty
510 BIEMILLER AND SLONIM
are controlled. (See Figure 2 and Appendixes F and G.) What can
account for these stabilities?
Methodology. It is certainly possible that in some cases, the
sentences we used to create "context" for the words may have
made the item particularly easy or difficult.
Word frequency. Word frequency is usually involved to ac-
count for differences in word knowledge (e.g., see references in
White et al., 1990). Carroll, Davies, and Richmond (1971) pro-
vided substantial data on word frequencies in schoolbook English.
However, Carroll et al.'s frequencies account for relatively little
variance in word knowledge in this sample of words. The highest
Pearson correlation obtained, r = .26, was calculated between SFI
and the average scores for words in Grades 1, 2, 4, and 5. (SFI is
a logarithmic index of word frequency in Carroll et al.). This
accounts for 7% of the observed Root Word Inventory variance. In
contrast, the LWV levels account for 52% of root word variance.
Adding the frequency index to LWV accounts for no additional
Root Word Inventory variance. On the other hand, advantaged
population word means account for 83% of normative population
word means. Again, neither LWV levels nor the frequency index
adds any significant variance to this association.
Why does frequency have so little effect? Part of the answer lies
in the varying meanings of words. Some of the meanings that we
used based on random sampling from LWV were uncommon uses
of common words [e.g., beat (wings), bit (computer information),
or tree (rack for shoes, hats)]. These words have high frequencies
in print, but not in the meanings used. Frequencies of word
meanings rather than word forms might lead to better predictions
(but would be very hard to produce). It is also possible that some
words have different frequencies in oral use than in print. It is clear
that factors other than print frequency account for most variation in
word knowledge as identified by both LWV and our Root Word
Inventory.
Sequential pattern made clearer by cross-age ability grouping.
The existence of a strong sequence in word acquisition is not
surprising. However, it is important to note that when data are
grouped by achievement level rather than by grade (as LWV does)
or age (as Peabody and Wechsler do), sequential patterns become
clearer. Note in Appendixes F and G that in the present data,
specific "achievement levels" typically include children from three
or four grades.
Are there underlying developmental factors explaining the
order of word acquisition? Certainly some of the words rarely
known even by Grade 6 may involve complex meanings requir-
ing further cognitive advances. Possible examples might be
Reformation, locomotion, and oligarchy. However, there are
other words virtually unknown by sixth graders that may simply
not have been experienced. Examples might be valor, parch,
and destitute. These and others appear to be concepts that could
be understood at younger ages. Frankly, at this point, we
believe that there is a stronger observed sequence of word
learning than can be explained solely by cognitive constraints,
as can be seen in Appendix A. We wish we could provide a
better explanation for the clear sequence we see. We can be
clearer about what does not explain this sequence (e.g., print
word frequency, cognitive constraints) than about what does
explain this observed sequence of word acquisition.
The Educational Implications of These Findings
Each of these findings has considerable significance for educa-
tional practice.
Implications of word acquisition by Grade 2. At the end of
Grade 2, children in the lowest quartile had 2000 fewer root words
than the average. Feitelson and her colleagues (Feitelson, Gold-
stein, Iraqi, & Share, 1991; Feitelson, Kita, & Goldstein, 1986)
have demonstrated that it is possible to increase rates of vocabu-
lary and language acquisition significantly prior to Grade 2. By far
the simplest way to reduce vocabulary differences apparent in
Grade 2 or 3 would be to make some effort to foster vocabulary
growth in the preschool and early primary years.
Implications of word acquisition after Grade 2. It is important
to note that children in the normative sample appear to be catching
up to the advantaged sample between second and fifth grade.
However, the absolute difference in root word vocabulary between
the least and most advanced quartiles remains quite large in all
grades in both the normative and advantaged samples. The lowest
Grade 5 quartiles in both populations had a root word vocabulary
around the level of Grade 4 children near the median (see Table
11). Thus schooling appears to allow some catching up across
social classes but may not reduce differences between those who
started school with large vocabularies and those who did not.
Various studies have shown that it is possible to increase rates of
vocabulary acquisition in the middle-grade years (see Stahl, 1999,
for a summary). It remains to be seen whether low-quartile chil-
dren can come closer to average fifth- or sixth-grade achievement.
It may also be necessary to recognize, as Chall and Conard
(1991) suggested, that children who are lagging in vocabulary
development may need reading materials that are somewhat more
restricted in their vocabulary demands, especially for "indepen-
dent" (unassisted) reading. Either there must be variation in the
vocabulary demands of books read by different children, or the
range of ages in classes must vary somewhat more so that children
have more similar vocabulary achievement. To what extent a
somewhat looser definition of ages appropriate to grades would
help remains a subject of much debate. However, these data would
be consistent with allowing a wider variation of ages for particular
grades, as suggested in Biemiller (1993).
Implications of a sequence of word acquisition. Root words
appear to be learned in roughly the same order by most children.
(We also have preliminary evidence suggesting that the same is
true even for children whose first language is not English; Bie-
miller, 1999a). To some degree, this word order can be predicted
from LWV levels. This suggests that a plausible vocabulary cur-
riculum sequence can be established empirically. It becomes rea-
sonable to define bodies of vocabulary that should be largely
known by certain grades, or better, by points in a curriculum
(through which students may not progress at the same rate). This
may be especially important before children are reading—in kin-
dergarten and Grade 1. For example, it appears that by the end of
Grade 2, average children understand most Level 2 words, about
half of Level 4 words, and about a third of Level 6 words from the
LWV. It would be worth trying to bring most children to this level
of vocabulary achievement.
On a vocabulary test, we may infer that they are familiar with
most of the words up to an identifiable range of words, are likely
to be learning another identifiable range of words, and probably
 VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT
need relatively little emphasis on words more difficult than that
second range of words. As they progress, we can identify ranges of
words that should then be introduced.
A Final Note
We began this article by observing that although vocabulary
development is crucial for school success, it has not received the
attention and interest that work on identifying printed words and
spelling have received. The findings presented herein support the
need to create a more systematic approach to facilitating vocabu-
lary development in the schools. If we are roughly correct, an
average rate of about 3 root words per day (6 if all words were to
be learned at school) is a potentially manageable task. Evidence
that all children are adding words at similar rates after Grade 2
suggests that with greater educational focus on vocabulary, chil-
dren could start adding words at a similar level from kindergarten
or earlier. Evidence that there is a well-defined sequence to what
words are learned makes the problem of planning a vocabulary
curriculum more realistic. A move to a more teacher-centered
approach to vocabulary development is a needed complement to
the move to increased focus on phonics skills in reading that has
occurred in the past decade.
References
Adams, M. J. (1990). Beginning to read: Thinking and learning about
print. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Allington, R. L., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (1998). The politics of literacy
teaching: How "research" shaped educational policy. Educational Re-
searcher, 25(8), 4-12.
Anglin, J. M. (1993). Vocabulary development: A morphological analysis.
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 55(10,
Serial No. 238).
Beals, D. (1997). Sources of support for learning words in conversation:
Evidence from mealtimes. Child Language, 24, 673-694.
Beck, I., & McKeown, M. (1990). Conditions of vocabulary acquisition. In
R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, P. B. Mosenthal, & P. D. Pearson (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research, (Vol. 2, pp. 789-814). New York:
Longman.
Beck, I. L., Perfetti, C , & McKeown, M. G. (1982). Effects of long-term
vocabulary instruction on lexical access and reading comprehension.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 74, 506-521.
Becker, W. C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvan-
taged—What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational
Review, 47, 518-543.
Biemiller, A. (1993, December). Lake Wobegon revisited: On diversity
and education. Educational Researcher, 22, 7-12.
Biemiller, A. (1998, April). Oral vocabulary, word identification, and
reading comprehension in English second language and English first
language elementary school children. Paper presented at the annual
meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading, San Diego,
CA.
Biemiller, A. (1999a, April). Estimating vocabulary growth for ESL chil-
dren with and without listening comprehension instruction. Paper pre-
sented at the annual conference of the American Educational Research
Association, Montreal, Quebec, Canada.
Biemiller, A. (1999b). Language and reading success. Cambridge, MA:
Brookline Books.
Cantalini, M. (1987). The effects of age and gender on school readiness
and school success. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
511
Carroll, J. B., Davies, P., & Richmond, B. (1971). The American Heritage
word frequency book. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Case, R. (1985). Intellectual development: Birth to adulthood. New York:
Academic Press.
Case, R. (1992). The mind's staircase: Exploring the conceptual under-
pinnings of children's thought and knowledge. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Catts, H. W., Fey, M. E., Zhang, X., & Tomblin, J. B. (1999). Language
basis of reading and reading disabilities: Evidence from a longitudinal
investigation. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 331-361.
Chall, J. S. (1996). Stages of reading development. (2nd ed.). New York:
Harcourt Brace. (Original work published 1983)
Chall, J. S., & Conard, S. S. (1991). Should textbooks challenge students?
New York: Teachers College Press.
Chall, J. S., Jacobs, V. A., & Baldwin, L. E. (1990). The reading crisis:
Why poor children fall behind. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University
Press.
Cunningham, A. E., & Stanovich, K. E. (1997). Early reading acquisition
and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Devel-
opmental Psychology, 33, 934-945.
Curtis, M. E. (1980). Development of components of reading skill. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 72, 656-669.
Curtis, M. E. (1987). Vocabulary testing and vocabulary instruction. In
M. G. McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary
acquisition (pp. 37-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Curtis, M. E., & Longo, A. M. (1999). When adolescents can't read:
Methods and materials that work. Cambridge, MA: Brookline Books.
Dale, E., & O'Rourke, J. (1979). The living word vocabulary: The words
we know. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Dale, E., & O'Rourke, J. (1981). The living word vocabulary. Chicago:
World Book/Childcraft International.
Duncan, G., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, P. (1994). Economic depriva-
tion and early childhood development. Child Development, 65, 2 9 6-
318.
Feitelson, D., Goldstein, Z., Iraqi, J., & Share, D. I. (1991). Effects of
listening to story reading on aspects of literacy acquisition in a diglossic
situation. Reading Research Quarterly, 28, 70-79.
Feitelson, D., Kita, B., and Goldstein, Z. (1986). Effects of listening to
series stories on first graders' comprehension and use of language.
Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 339-356.
Flavell, J. H. (1992). Cognitive development: Past, present, and future.
Developmental Psychology, 28, 998-1005.
Gough, P. B., & Tunmer, W. E. (1986). Decoding, reading and reading
disability. Remedial and Special Education, 7, 6-10.
Graves, M. F., Juel, C , & Graves, B. B. (1998). Teaching reading in the
21st century. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
Gregory, D., Earl, L., & O'Donoghue, B. (1993). A study of reading
recovery in Scarborough: 1990-1992 (Publication No. 92/93-15). Scar-
borough, Ontario, Canada: Scarborough Board of Education.
Hart, B., & Risley, T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday
experience of young American children. Baltimore: Brookes.
Hazenberg, S., & Hulstijn, J. H. (1996). Defining a minimal receptive
second-language vocabulary for non-native university students: An em-
pirical investigation. Applied Linguistics, 17, 145-163.
Huttenlocher, J., Levine, S., & Vevea, J. (1998). Environmental input and
cognitive growth: A study using time-period comparisons. Child Devel-
opment, 69, 1012-1029.
Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., Karweit, J. L., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A.
(1993). Success for all: Longitudinal effects of a restructuring program
for inner-city schools. American Educational Research Journal, 30,
123-148.
McKeown, M. G., & Curtis, M. E. (Eds.). (1987). The nature of vocabulary
acquisition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
McLloyd, V. C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child develop-
ment. American Psychologist, 53, 185-204.
512 BIEMILLER AND SLONIM
Morrison, F. J-, Williams, M. A., & Massetti, G. M. (1998, April). The
contributions of 1Q and schooling to academic achievement Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the Society for the Scientific Study
of Reading, San Diego, CA.
Nagy, W. E., & Herman, P. A. (1987). Breadth and depth of vocabu-
lary knowledge: Implications for acquisition and instruction. In M. G.
McKeown & M. E. Curtis (Eds.), The nature of vocabulary acquisition
(pp. 19-36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Nagy, W. E., Herman, P. A., & Anderson, R. C. (1985). Learning words
from context. Reading Research Quarterly, 20, 233-253.
Piaget, J. (1971). Piaget's theory. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Carmichael's
manual of child psychology (3rd ed., pp. 703-732). New York:
Wiley.
Pinnell, G. S., Lyons, C. A., Deford, D. E., Bryk, A. S., & Seltzer, M.
(1994). Comparing instructional models for the literacy education of
high-risk first graders. Reading Research Quarterly, 29, 9-38.
Stahl, S. A. (1999). Vocabulary development. Cambridge, MA: Brookline
Books.
Sticht, T. G., & James, J. H. (1984). Listening and reading. In D. Pearson
(Ed.), Handbook of research on reading (Vol. 1, pp. 293-317). New
York: Longman.
Webster's third new international dictionary of the English language.
(1981). Springfield, MA: Merriam.
White, T. G., Graves, M. F., & Slater, W. H. (1990). Growth of reading
vocabulary in diverse elementary schools: Decoding and word meaning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 281-290.
 VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT 513

Appendix A

Root Words From Forms A and B Showing Words Ordered by Mean Difficulty, Meanings Selected,
Living Word Vocabulary (LWV) Level, and Test Sentences
LWV
Word Meaning tested level Test sentence

First decile (0-1,300 words)

Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 91%-79%
fish A water animal 2 Johnny caught a fish.
flood Unusual flow of water 2 The flood caused a lot of damage to the town.
throat Passage from stomach to mouth 2 He felt a lump in his throat.
match Thing to light fire 2 Where is the box of matches?
cafe Eating place 2 She met him at the cafe.
Form B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 93%-87%
spread To distribute (over a surface, as 2 Use a knife to spread the jam.
in buttering or painting)
shot Injection 6 Go to the doctor to get your shot.
near Close 2 The drugstore was near the hospital.
voice Sound from mouth 2 Stephanie's voice could be heard from far away.
stab Stick knife into 4 He pretended to stab his friend.
Second decile (1,301-2,600 words)
Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 77%-67%
stuff Worthless things 6 Take that stuff outside.
subtract Take number from another 2 Subtract the smaller number from the bigger number.
done Finished doing 2 I've done all my work.
hope To expect and wish for 2 I hope that it rains today.
flown Moved through the air" 4 The ball had flown a great distance.
fuss Cry and scream 4 The baby made a fuss.
Form B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 85%-74%
loop A circled string 2 He made two loops with his shoe laces.
listen To try to hear 2 You should listen to your mother.
drop Fall 2 The ball dropped from his hand.
swing Strike at a ball 4 Jamie took his second swing at the ball.
kept Keeps, keep 2 He kept his old hockey trophies.
math School subject 6 John got his math work done quickly.
Third decile (2,601-3,900 words)
Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 66%-59%
sliver Tiny piece of wood 8 He got a sliver in his foot.
anchor Big iron hook 4 He threw the anchor.
buckle To fasten 2 Buckle your seatbelt.
boulder Large rock 2 The boulder was too heavy to move.
secure Free from fear 6 When there is war people do not feel secure.
right Exactly 4 I want just the right dress.
Form B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 72%-54%
space Room 4 There is space for only three passengers.
shadow Dark spot cast by light 2 He was afraid of his own shadow.
fresh New, not spoiled 2 A fridge keeps food fresh.
peep Look shyly 4 She peeped around the corner.
wad Rolled up bit 8 She gave me a wad of tissue paper.
justice Fair dealing 4 The criminal was brought to justice.
Fourth decile (3,901-5,200 words)
Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 57%-55%
cobra Snake 6 The cobra lived in the house.
tally Count 8 The teacher kept a tally of days missed.
react Act backb 10 When the cat saw the mouse, she didn't react.
thud Dull sound 8 There was a thud in the next room.
drama Plays 6 She enjoys watching drama productions.
blab Tell secret 10 He made a promise not to blab.
Form B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 5Wc-Al%
dodo Extinct bird 10 The dodo is extinct.
through From start to end 4 The test continued through the day.
matting A straw fabric 12 The floor matting was frayed.
haul Distance travelled 10 It was a long haul from Mexico to Canada.
gull Bird 6 The gulls were eating the food.
litter Disorder 10 The room was littered with empty cups.

(Appendix continues)
514 BIEMILLER AND SLONIM

Appendix A (continued)
LWV
Word Meaning tested level Test sentence

Fifth decile (5,201-6,500 words)

Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 51%-42%
stock Supply, provide 6 The boy stocked the shelves in the grocery store.
peeve Annoy 8 My brother peeves me.
shimmer Faint gleam 10 The moonlight shimmered on the lake.
straight Direct 4 The dog went straight home.
mammoth Huge 6 It was a mammoth building.
root Dig around 10 She rooted around in her basement for the sleeping bag.
Form B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 41%-34%
Vaseline Petroleum jelly 6 The jar of Vaseline is on the shelf.
parcel Package 6 The parcel was delivered to the office.
possum Animal 4 He saw a possum.
distant Long ago 6 The year my mother was born seems distant to me.
transit Public transportation 8 The children took transit to school.
man Humankind 2 Man has always had trouble with the weather.
Sixth decile (6,501-7,800 words)
Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 42%-24%
know Recognize 4 He knows that person.
thigh Upper part of leg 6 The thigh is Marty's favorite part of the chicken.
because For the reason that 4 She went home because she was sick.
beat Flap wings 4 The robin beat its wings.
astronomy About stars 4 You use telescopes in astronomy.
victim Injured person 6 She was the victim.
Form B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 31%-23%
knoll Small hill 10 The boy ran up and over the knoll.
period A time in history 4 The period of the dinosaurs was very interesting.
envelop Surround 8 Fog enveloped the city.
garble To mix up 12 He garbled his words.
duplex Two homes in one 8 He lives on one side of a duplex.
lash Fasten with rope 6 Lash the suitcase to the roof of the car.
Seventh decile (7,801-9,100 words)
Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 23%-16%
tree Rack for shoes, hats 12 The guests hung their hats on the coat tree.
polo Game played on horseback 4 They were watching polo.
guard A defense 6 Keep your guard up.
former First of two 10 The former Prime Minister spoke to the people.
dibs Next claim to 12 I have dibs on the car when she gets home.
induct To bring in 12 I wonder if the Baseball Hall of Fame will induct
John Doe.
Form B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 21%-11%
text Schoolbook 6 She had a text about history.
nation A country 4 He had lived in two nations.
ominous Threatening 12 There were ominous shadows in the alley.
narrow Lacking a broad view 10 Many people have a narrow understanding of the
pollution issue.
writhe Twist about 12 The caterpillar writhed about.
curious Odd, strange 10 What a curious thing to say!
Eighth decile (9,101-10,400 words)
Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 13%-8%
alias False name 10 When asked for his name, he gave an alias.
vice Evil habit 10 Gambling is a vice.
robust Strong and healthy 8 Construction workers must be very robust.
rotary Wheel-like motion 8 The phone had a rotary dial.
swoon Faint 12 The sight of blood caused her to swoon.
junction Joining 6 The junction links the two highways.
Form B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 10%-5%
lust Strong desire 10 Their lust for battle was strong.
character Nature of 8 Difficult times in life may show the true character of a
person.
cartilage Tough tissue 8 She suffered from torn cartilage.
matron Married woman 10 The matron came to the social tea.
delinquent Breaks laws 6 The delinquent arrived at the courthouse.
whittle Cut wood with knife 4 He whittled a stick.
 VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT 515

Appendix A (continued)
LWV
Word Meaning tested level Test sentence

Ninth decile (10,401-11,700 words)

Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 7%-3%
bit Item of computer data 12 There are 8 bits in 1 byte.
franchise Chain of businesses 10 He bought a restaurant franchise.
sequence Connect in series 8 The sequence of events was surprising.
inquisitive Curious 8 The inquisitive scientist made many observations.
vain Conceited 10 People do not like her because she is vain.
popular Representing the people 12 He was elected by popular vote.
Form B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 5%-2%
jurisdiction Authority 10 The police officer had no jurisdiction outside the city
limits.
perpendicular Upright position 8 Climb the perpendicular pole.
empty Without meaning 10 The book had an empty plot.
republic Representative government 8 The Republic of Mexico chose not to join.
discord Clash of sounds 12 The band's concert was full of discord.
cow Female of species 6 The whale cow met the others.
Tenth decile (11,701-13,000 words)
Form A: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: 3%-l%
etch Engrave with acid 12 I am going to etch a metal plate in art class today.
question Problem 12 She presented a difficult question.
valor Courage 10 The valor of the knight was praised far and near.
parch Dry up 8 I was parched after my walk.
destitute Terribly poor 12 He was destitute.
cognac French brandy 12 Leave the cognac on the table.
Form B: Grades 1, 2, 4, 5: \%-O%
locomotion Ability to move 8 His locomotion was poor.
lance Cut open 8 He lanced the wound.
abrasive Scratch material 12 That material is abrasive.
Reformation Protestant era 12 The Reformation was a long time ago.
oligarchy Ruled by a few 12 A few countries in the world are oligarchies.

Note. The meanings given were selected randomly. Many words also have other given meanings.
" Not a root word. Included in test by error.
b
A derived word but probably learned as a basic word.

(Appendixes continue)
 516 BIEMILLER AND SLONIM

Appendix B

Correct Percentage of Form A Words Ordered by Normative Average for Grades 1,2, 4, and 5
Grade

SK l 2 3 4 5 6 1, 2, 4, 5(M)
T \X/W
LWV
Word level Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv Adv Norm Adv
cognac 12 0 0 0 14 0 18 32 1 14 1 26 31 1 18
destitute 12 0 0 0 1 0 0 7 1 1 1 5 1 1 2
parch 8 0 0 0 4 0 5 7 0 18 5 23 16 1 13
valor 10 0 0 0 0 0 5 7 5 19 1 21 5 2 11
question 12 0 0 0 0 0 5 3 0 0 8 0 4 2 1
etch 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 10 10 8 3 4
popular 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 2 10 14 15 3 4
vain 10 0 0 0 10 0 5 26 9 16 5 14 31 4 11
inquisitive 8 0 1 0 14 2 16 10 9 10 10 19 24 5 15
sequence 8 0 0 0 11 1 12 10 1 37 23 39 58 6 25
franchise 10 0 0 0 16 0 1 10 14 10 13 23 50 7 12
bit 12 0 0 0 0 0 5 13 13 9 15 9 16 7 6
junction 6 0 1 0 14 8 19 22 11 5 11 37 58 7 19
swoon 12 0 0 0 7 0 5 1 18 10 25 14 8 11 9
rotary 8 0 0 0 16 6 5 19 14 28 25 21 46 11 17
robust 8 0 1 5 8 12 7 31 9 19 20 19 39 12 13
vice 10 0 0 0 2 8 7 16 24 14 18 12 5 12 9
alias 10 0 0 5 9 10 3 19 9 12 28 21 24 13 11
induct 12 0 0 0 16 6 27 25 20 23 38 25 24 16 23
dibs 12 0 0 0 14 0 9 44 20 28 55 37 43 19 22
former 10 0 0 0 7 12 10 13 22 39 50 48 39 21 26
guard 6 0 0 5 16 8 18 19 24 34 50 48 58 22 29
polo 4 1 1 6 18 9 19 63 29 59 45 73 70 22 42
tree 12 0 0 0 14 24 23 44 22 18 45 25 23 23 20
victim 6 10 1 0 30 8 23 50 26 46 60 48 58 23 37
astronomy 4 5 3 11 32 15 32 44 27 75 55 82 100 27 55
beat 4 10 45 5 45 30 59 69 35 41 43 46 77 28 48
because 4 0 5 5 25 24 25 63 48 62 50 73 81 32 46
thigh 6 5 35 11 54 24 55 84 57 75 65 73 77 39 64
know 4 10 20 19 42 44 21 41 44 28 60 39 73 42 32
root 10 0 5 0 31 40 41 69 53 50 75 57 73 42 45
mammoth 6 5 3 21 28 26 32 44 57 64 70 64 73 43 47
straight 4 0 20 5 45 40 64 37 57 86 78 66 46 45 65
shimmer 10 0 10 11 28 48 59 94 63 57 80 68 62 51 53
peeve 8 3 6 0 31 48 43 53 72 59 83 46 85 51 45
stock 6 5 33 26 40 46 43 44 52 57 80 55 62 51 49
blab 10 0 0 3 24 40 55 87 83 77 92 91 88 55 62
drama 6 0 25 6 41 54 64 69 67 68 93 82 96 55 64
thud 8 3 40 0 59 54 75 94 78 91 90 82 92 56 77
react 10 0 15 11 26 62 77 72 72 64 80 71 58 56 59
tally 8 0 1 11 45 52 73 97 83 64 82 62 66 57 61
cobra 6 10 60 21 83 52 84 100 70 95 85 91 92 57 88
right 4 24 20 42 76 60 75 69 70 68 65 73 77 59 73
secure 6 12 28 24 59 60 73 75 70 68 83 89 77 59 72
boulder 2 17 50 32 73 62 77 81 61 80 90 77 69 61 77
buckle 2 33 78 42 69 62 89 100 67 62 78 84 65 62 76
anchor 4 29 70 45 86 70 84 84 57 84 88 80 81 65 84
sliver 8 12 53 13 76 76 77 84 89 61 85 84 77 66 75
fuss 4 62 65 48 69 70 75 84 78 86 73 73 85 67 76
flown 4 53 60 45 91 78 86 97 61 80 90 91 88 68 87
hope 2 48 55 34 62 68 91 97 85 89 92 82 88 70 81
done 2 43 60 37 90 64 100 100 83 95 95 95 100 70 95
subtract 2 8 53 42 64 72 86 100 87 91 100 95 100 75 84
stuff 6 22 50 42 78 78 80 84 89 80 100 91 92 77 82
cafe 2 48 83 58 90 82 100 97 76 91 100 89 100 79 92
match 2 52 80 79 86 86 98 100 89 93 92 95 100 86 93
throat 2 72 70 71 91 100 95 100 87 93 100 93 96 90 93
flood 2 67 92 76 93 96 100 100 93 91 95 95 92 90 95
fish 2 69 75 87 95 90 98 100 89 93 97 93 96 91 95

Note. LWV = Living Word Vocabulary; SK = senior kindergarten; Norm = normative sample; Adv = advantaged sample.
 VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT 517

Appendix C

Correct Percentage of Form B Words Ordered by Normative Average for Grades 1,2, A, and 5

Grade

SK 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 (M)
1, 2, 4,
LWV
Word level Norm Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv

oligarchy 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 4 13 0 16 0 4
reformation 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 8 3 0 0 3
abrasive 12 0 0 0 0 0 0 22 0 28 0 39 6 55 0 17
lance g 0 0 5 0 5 0 0 1 1 5 1 5 16 0 3
locomotion 8 2 3 5 1 3 1 0 1 14 21 27 15 23 1 12
cow 6 0 0 0 1 0 4 5 1 7 1 5 1 5 2 3
discord 12 0 0 2 3 0 1 24 3 25 9 20 5 20 2 12
republic 8 0 0 0 2 11 0 9 6 0 3 15 16 28 2 7
empty 10 0 1 9 1 5 4 39 6 14 1 95 13 100 3 31
perpendicular 8 0 0 1 0 0 4 10 12 1 13 12 13 21 4 3
jurisdiction 10 0 0 5 8 0 4 27 6 14 17 1 35 1 5 5
whittle 4 0 0 7 16 11 1 18 1 21 27 43 25 60 5 21
delinquent 6 0 0 1 0 0 2 5 17 3 4 13 20 21 5 4
matron 10 0 3 2 4 0 5 8 14 7 6 8 5 1 7 4
cartilage 8 0 0 7 10 26 4 32 17 21 23 24 40 43 8 20
character 8 0 6 7 13 53 9 36 6 43 46 64 80 70 8 42
lust 10 0 0 0 4 5 9 6 25 25 11 34 26 40 10 16
curious 10 5 3 9 7 5 21 21 12 30 15 29 16 20 11 18
writhe 12 0 0 14 13 11 18 50 17 32 17 29 43 46 12 22
narrow 10 0 0 5 11 37 21 50 23 43 46 88 50 90 14 43
ominous 12 5 0 9 10 5 9 16 36 5 2 20 10 23 14 10
nation 4 2 0 12 14 24 21 27 34 50 50 50 40 73 17 34
text 6 0 0 1 8 8 24 18 50 14 30 24 45 25 21 12
lash 6 9 3 19 40 45 21 55 28 30 44 29 63 43 23 31
duplex 8 0 0 3 26 11 38 18 42 21 25 10 35 35 27 11
garble 12 2 6 0 26 16 35 53 42 50 46 53 55 55 27 30
envelop 8 0 6 14 38 24 35 55 31 41 63 57 58 65 27 34
period 4 0 1 11 28 68 28 84 59 71 59 76 90 75 29 56
knoll 10 7 17 2 36 0 31 6 39 5 21 10 40 23 31 4
man 2 14 23 55 21 61 49 52 45 36 57 38 70 45 34 47
transit 8 9 6 32 34 42 54 59 45 62 54 95 60 85 35 58
distant 6 3 3 32 24 71 54 48 69 39 81 55 60 48 38 49
possum 4 7 23 50 44 42 38 50 50 82 75 86 80 95 39 65
parcel 6 9 11 55 48 55 43 75 53 71 67 76 55 80 39 64
Vaseline 6 25 17 59 50 79 55 80 42 73 48 88 65 85 41 75
litter 10 9 6 14 50 39 59 47 50 52 55 91 95 90 41 49
gull 6 9 22 77 38 68 41 95 67 95 81 79 80 93 42 80
haul 10 0 34 9 48 21 37 42 64 26 59 20 45 40 46 19
matting 12 14 6 18 56 37 54 42 72 50 71 43 40 80 47 37
through 4 14 17 12 50 45 64 46 64 25 63 50 70 36 49 33
dodo 10 18 17 16 66 39 64 82 56 71 79 50 78 80 51 44
justice 4 14 22 48 78 45 43 52 72 39 83 65 73 58 54 49
wad 8 18 11 34 66 58 69 68 81 55 75 79 90 92 57 56
peep 4 16 39 73 60 90 79 86 53 77 88 95 90 80 58 84
fresh 2 28 50 73 66 92 71 86 67 77 90 93 100 100 64 84
shadow 2 66 64 73 72 55 62 75 70 64 71 86 68 95 67 69
space 4 41 50 82 76 84 78 95 83 82 92 91 88 80 72 85
math 6 16 36 68 80 82 86 86 95 86 86 72 85 90 74 77
kept 2 52 64 84 76 87 76 95 89 91 96 100 83 97 76 91
swing 4 23 50 41 78 84 86 64 95 66 92 62 97 45 77 63
drop 2 75 70 86 78 100 97 100 86 95 100 95 100 95 83 94
listen 2 59 81 84 80 95 84 95 89 95 96 93 100 90 83 92
loop 2 89 78 68 86 95 90 98 86 89 96 95 100 93 85 87
stab 4 52 78 77 92 76 86 93 94 93 98 100 90 87 87 86
near 2 71 81 100 90 92 90 100 95 86 100 93 100 100 89 93
voice 2 75 89 100 94 87 93 95 89 84 83 91 85 73 91 91
shot 6 68 83 75 94 100 100 95 94 84 100 76 95 83 93 87
spread 2 93 83 77 98 89 95 86 95 61 96 83 95 63 93 78
Note. LWV = Living Word Vocabulary; SK = senior kindergarten; Norm = normative sample; Adv = advantaged sample.

(Appendixes continue)
518 BIEMILLER AND SLONIM

Appendix D

Form A: Correlations Between Word Means in Different Grade Groups and With Dale and O'Rourke's Levels
Grade

K 1 2 4 5 Average
LWV
Grade level Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm
K
Norm -.69 —
Adv - . 76 .86 —
i
l
Norm -.75 .92 .88 _
Adv -.80 .81 .93 .86
2
Norm -.71 .77 .87 .85 .93
Adv -.73 .73 .88 .79 .94 .95
4
Norm -.66 .62 .75 .71 .86 .93 .93
Adv -.77 .64 .77 .71 .87 .86 .91 .91
5
Norm -.66 .57 .72 .67 .84 .90 .90 .95 .92
Adv -.77 .61 .75 .70 .86 .86 .90 .90 .96 .92
Average
Norm -.76 .82 .88 .88 .93 .97 .94 .94 .91 .92 .90
Adv -.80 .76 .91 .83 .97 .94 .98 .92 .95 .91 .94 .96

Note. Number of observations = 59. LWV = Living Word Vocabulary; Norm = normative sample; Adv = advantaged sample; K = Kindergarten.

Appendix E

Form B: Correlations Between Word Means in Different Grade Groups and With Dale and O'Rourke's Levels
Grade

1 2 3 4 5 6 Average
LWV
Grade level Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv Norm Adv

1
Norm -.70
Adv -.75 .88 —
2
Norm -.63 .87 .85
Adv -.74 .82 .90 .86 —

Norm -.64 .85 .85 .95 .90

Adv -.62 .77 .87 .86 .92 .87 —
A
4
Norm -.63 .80 .80 .93 .85 .94 .83 _
Adv -.61 .73 .86 .82 .89 .84 .94 .80 —
3
Norm -.69 .78 .84 .92 .92 .92 .90 .92 .89
Adv -.57 .63 .77 .72 .81 .74 .85 .68 .87 .79 —
6
Norm -.67 .72 .77 .86 .91 .88 .89 .85 .87 .93 .80 —
Adv -.48 .54 .69 .67 .73 .67 .82 .64 .85 .75 .93 .76 —
Average
Norm -.70 .88 .88 .97 .93 .98 .90 .96 .88 .96 .77 .93 .71 —
Adv -.68 .78 .91 .85 .94 .87 .97 .82 .96 .91 .93 .89 .89 .91 —

Note, n — 58. LWV = Living Word Vocabulary; Norm = normative sample; Adv = advantaged sample.
 VOCABULARY DEVELOPMENT 519

Appendix F

Normative Population: Performance of Vocabulary Achievement Groups on Words of Varying Difficulty

Average
of grades
1,2,' i, 5 Vocabulary ability group
Word decile
and grade Norm Adv 0%-10% ll%-20% 21%-30% 31%-40% 41%-50% 51%-60% 61%-70% 71%-80% Total

Form A: Percentages
Decile
10 2 8 0 0 0 0 1 2 5 (none)
9 5 14 0 1 0 0 2 10 21
8 11 11 0 0 4 5 13 18 36
7 20 27 0 1 1 9 21 30 75
6 32 49 0 5 13 23 38 55 77
5 47 49 2 8 23 45 63 72 83
4 56 69 0 6 22 58 84 87 94
3 62 76 11 24 53 68 70 91 89
2 71 84 17 47 65 76 85 94 94
1 87 94 49 74 89 91 91 97 100

Form A: iVs
Grade
K 11 8 2 0 0 0 0 0 21
1 6 6 6 1 0 0 0 0 19
2 1 3 4 7 8 3 0 0 26
4 0 1 3 5 6 5 3 0 23
5 0 0 0 1 4 8 6 0 19
Total 18 18 15 14 18 16 9 0 108

Form B: Percentages
Decile
10 0 8 0 0 1 1 / 1 4 (none)
9 3 10 0 1 1 3 5 8 16
8 7 18 0 2 1 8 14 20 28
7 15 23 0 1 4 17 20 42 58
6 27 28 0 4 12 25 42 54 81
5 38 60 0 6 21 36 56 79 83
4 46 44 1 9 25 46 64 80 87
3 62 71 14 25 51 68 77 86 93
2 80 84 32 49 74 83 95 97 97
1 91 87 36 73 92 93 95 96 100

Form B: Ns
Grade
K 4 10 1 1 0 0 0 0 22
1 2 5 10 1 0 0 0 0 18
2 0 1 5 11 5 2 1 0 25
3 0 2 6 8 10 3 0 0 29
4 0 0 1 6 6 4 1 0 18
5 0 0 1 2 11 7 3 0 24
6 0 0 0 3 3 8 5 0 19
Total 6 18 30 32 35 24 10 0 155

Note. Grade 3 children were not given Form A: Norm = normative sample; Adv = advantaged sample; K = kindergarten. Percentages in italics are
between 0 and 24. Percentages in bold are between 75 and 99. All other percentages are between 25 and 74.

(Appendixes continue)
520 BIEMILLER AND SLONIM

Appendix G

Advantaged Population: Performance of Vocabulary Achievement Groups on Words of Varying Difficulty

Average
of Grades
1,2,- 4,5 Vocabulary ability group
\17__.J *1 ^ "1

Word decile
and grade Norm Adv 0%-10% ll%-20% 21%-30% 31%-4O% 41%-50% 51%-60% 61%-70% 71%-80% Total

Form A: Percentages
Decile
10 2 8 0 0 ; ; 7 8 21 31
9 5 14 0 0 0 3 9 25 38 61
8 11 11 1 0 1 2 10 19 25 41
7 20 27 0 1 0 3 28 45 61 72
6 32 49 4 10 17 29 53 75 79 94
5 47 49 2 9 10 32 50 65 74 72
4 56 69 / 5 26 51 76 90 96 93
3 62 76 6 23 55 75 82 83 91 94
2 71 84 21 42 61 82 91 95 95 97
1 87 94 37 68 89 95 97 97 97 98

Form A: Ns
Grade
JK 10 9 1 2 0 0 0 0 22
SK 2 5 8 5 0 0 0 0 20
1 1 2 9 5 5 0 0 0 22
2 0 1 1 3 6 6 2 0 19
3 0 0 0 4 5 8 4 1 22
4 1 1 0 4 3 7 6 0 22
5 0 0 0 0 4 10 4 3 21
6 0 0 1 2 0 7 6 4 20
Total 14 18 20 25 23 38 22 8 168

Form B: Percentages
Decile
10 0 8 (none) 0 0 4 4 12 17 45
9 3 10 0 1 4 16 19 41 50
8 7 18 0 1 3 12 24 37 58
7 15 23 2 3 15 29 46 59 63
6 27 28 0 5 22 36 51 70 88
5 38 60 6 29 52 62 77 79 79
4 46 44 4 23 32 56 73 79 88
3 62 71 21 53 66 77 85 88 100
2 80 84 61 68 87 87 92 94 100
1 91 87 48 86 83 84 92 99 100

Form B: Ns
Grade
1 0 3 9 6 4 0 0 0 22
2 0 0 2 12 1 3 1 0 19
3 0 0 0 2 9 6 2 0 19
4 0 1 2 5 7 2 5 0 22
0 0 0 2 9 4 5 1 21
6 0 0 0 1 6 5 6 2 20
Total 0 4 13 28 36 20 19 3 123

Note. Junior and senior kindergarten (JK and SK, respectively) children were not given Form B. Norm = normative sample; Adv = advantaged sample.
Percentages in italics are between 0 and 24. Percentages in bold are between 75 and 99. Ail other percentages are between 25 and 74.

Received August 10, 2000

Revision received October 26, 2000
Accepted October 27, 2000