ArticleJournal of experimental child psychology2013
The genetic and environmental etiologies of individual differences in early reading growth in Australia, the United States, and Scandinavia.
Article in Journal of experimental child psychology, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
10 citing papers in PubMed.
- Phonological awareness mediates the relationship between DCDC2 and reading performance with home environment.NPJ science of learning · 2024Article
- Prevalence of Developmental Dyslexia in Primary School Children: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Brain sciences · 2022Review
- The Differential Relations Between ADHD and Reading Comprehension: A Quantile Regression and Quantile Genetic Approach.Behavior genetics · 2021Article
- Cross-Country Differences in Parental Reporting of Symptoms of ADHD.Journal of cross-cultural psychology · 2019Article
- Invariance of ADHD Symptoms Across Sex and Age: a Latent Analysis of ADHD and Impairment Ratings from Early Childhood into Adolescence.Journal of abnormal child psychology · 2019Article
- The genetic architecture of oral language, reading fluency, and reading comprehension: A twin study from 7 to 16 years.Developmental psychology · 2017Article
- Exploring the Co-Development of Reading Fluency and Reading Comprehension: A Twin Study.Child development · 2017Article
- The genetic and environmental etiologies of the relations between cognitive skills and components of reading ability.Journal of experimental psychology. General · 2016Article
- Association of DCDC2 Polymorphisms with Normal Variations in Reading Abilities in a Chinese Population.PloS one · 2016Article
- Why do Children Differ in Their Development of Reading and Related Skills?Scientific studies of reading : the official journal of the Society for the Scientific Study of Reading · 2014Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
Abstract
This first cross-country twin study of individual differences in reading growth from post-kindergarten to post-second grade analyzed data from 487 twin pairs from the United States, 267 twin pairs from Australia, and 280 twin pairs from Scandinavia. Data from two reading measures were fit to biometric latent growth models. Individual differences for the reading measures at post-kindergarten in the United States and Australia were due primarily to genetic influences and to both genetic and shared environmental influences in Scandinavia. In contrast, individual differences in growth generally had large genetic influences in all countries. These results suggest that genetic influences are largely responsible for individual differences in early reading development. In addition, the timing of the start of formal literacy instruction may affect the etiology of individual differences in early reading development but have only limited influence on the etiology of individual differences in growth.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.