ArticleBMC public health2026
Developmental trajectories of vocabulary and logical thinking skills across adolescence: a person-centered longitudinal study in China.
Article in BMC public health, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundAdolescence is a critical developmental period characterized by rapid neurobiological maturation and substantial changes in higher-order abilities, including vocabulary and logical thinking. Although prior research has documented general age-related improvements in these abilities, most studies have relied on cross-sectional or variable-centered designs, limiting insight into developmental heterogeneity and obscuring distinct developmental trajectories over time. Moreover, the relative importance of factors associated with these abilities across multiple ecological contexts—such as individual, family, school, and digital environments—remains insufficiently understood.
objectivesThis study aimed to identify distinct developmental trajectories of vocabulary and logical thinking abilities among Chinese adolescents and to examine the relative importance of factors associated with these trajectories across individual, family, school, and internet-related domains.
methodsData were drawn from the Chinese Family Panel Study (CFPS). A total of 662 adolescents (mean age at baseline = 12.14 ± 1.72 years; 44.1% male) were followed longitudinally from early to late adolescence. Latent class growth curve modeling was used to identify developmental trajectories, and logistic regression and machine learning approaches were applied to examine associations and to rank the relative importance of influencing factors.
resultsTwo distinct developmental trajectories were identified. The majority of adolescents exhibited relatively stable and improving trajectories of vocabulary and logical thinking abilities, whereas a smaller subgroup remained at lower levels across adolescence despite gradual improvement. Machine learning analyses consistently indicated that teacher satisfaction was most strongly associated with differences in developmental trajectories, followed by future confidence, parent–child communication, physical activity, and subjective well-being.
conclusionsThe findings highlight substantial heterogeneity in the development of adolescents’ vocabulary and logical thinking abilities and emphasize the relevance of the school environment—particularly teacher–student relationships—alongside individual emotional well-being and family contexts. Together, these results offer a nuanced perspective on developmental variability across adolescence and may help inform future research and practice aimed at understanding adolescents who follow less favorable developmental trajectories.
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.