How Does Parental Reading Influence Children’s Reading? A Study of Cognitive Mediation

Figures & data

FIGURE 1 Possible causal relationships between reading ability of parents on the one hand and reading-related cognitive skills and reading ability of children on the other.

TABLE 1 Descriptive Statistics

	Distributions			Correlations
	N	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
Fathers
Word reading	269	101.63	16.44
Pseudoword reading	269	90.13	22.78
1. Reading composite	269			—
Mothers
Word reading	297	101.35	13.72
Pseudoword reading	297	95.16	19.61
2. Reading composite	297			.16	—
Children
Word reading	373	74.82	18.04
Pseudoword reading	373	65.04	20.86
3. Reading composite	373			.38	.32	—
PA accuracy	369	0.75	0.19
PA reaction time(s)	369	3.64	2.05
4. PA fluency	369	0.27	0.15	.28	.19	.63	—
5. RAN (digits/sec)	373	2.27	0.45	.16	.19	.55	.38	—
6. VAS	190	37.01	7.44	.26	.15	.51	.43	.30

Note. Distribution parameters are given for raw scores. The correlations (all significant with ps < .03) are given for the variables in the structural equation models. For these models, first the square root of PA fluency and VAS scores was taken. Subsequently, all children’s variables were corrected for age. PA = phonological awareness; RAN = rapid naming; VAS = visual attention span.

TABLE 2 Parent–Child Correlations for Two Age Bands

	Age Band
	6–10 years		11–16 years		Difference
	N	r	N	r	z Value	p Value
Fathers’ reading with children’s
Reading	138	.34	131	.40	−0.50	.617
PA fluency	136	.21	130	.34	−1.17	.242
RAN (digits/sec)	138	.18	131	.16	0.22	.826
VAS	77	.31	60	.23	0.53	.596
Mothers’ reading with children’s
Reading	159	.28	138	.36	−0.71	.478
PA fluency	157	.13	137	.26	−1.21	.226
RAN (digits/sec)	159	.20	138	.19	0.08	.936
VAS	80	.20	66	.16	0.25	.802

Note. Reading = composite of word- and pseudoword-reading fluency; PA = phonological awareness; RAN = rapid naming; VAS = visual attention span.

FIGURE 2 Saturated structural equation model with standardized parameter estimates. Note. All parameter estimates are significant (ps < .03) except for VAS on mother’s reading. Correlations between unexplained variances in cognitive skills are omitted from the figure; values are PA-RAN .34, PA-VAS .37, RAN-VAS .26. Reading = word-level reading fluency; PA = phonological awareness; RAN = rapid naming; VAS = visual attention span.

FIGURE 3 Final structural equation model with standardized parameter estimates. Note. Arrows intersected by equal shapes are constrained to be equal. All path estimates have p values < .001; the parents’ reading correlation has p = .019. Correlations between unexplained variances in cognitive skills are omitted from the figure; values are: PA-RAN .33, PA-VAS .38, RAN-VAS .26. The model fit is χ²(4) = 3.25, p = .52; RMSEA < .001; N = 373 families (939 individuals). Reading = word-level reading fluency; PA = phonological awareness; RAN = rapid naming; VAS = visual attention span.

TABLE A1 Level of Education on a 5-Point Scale, Including Percentages for the FIOLA Sample and the Dutch Population of 35- to 55-Year-Olds

	Dutch	English Translation	FIOLA	Population
1	Basisonderwijs	Primary school	0.2%	3.8%
2	VMBO/VBO/MAVO MBO-1	Secondary education level 1Vocational education level 1	10.0%	16.4%
3	MBO-2, MBO-3, MBO-4 HAVO, VWO	Vocational education level 2, 3, 4Secondary education level 2, 3	30.1%	44.2%
4	HBO of WO Bachelor	Professional vocational bachelor or university bachelor	36.3%	23.5%
5	WO Master of hoger	University master or higher	23.4%	12.1%

Note. On this scale, the educational level of the Familial Influences on Literacy Abilities (FIOLA) sample has M = 3.73, SD = 0.94, and the Dutch population has M = 3.24, SD = 0.99.