Research Article

Comparing Scores on the Peabody Picture

Vocabulary Test and Receptive One-Word Picture
Vocabulary Test in Preschoolers With and Without
Hearing Loss
Erin M. Ingvalson,a Lynn K. Perry,b Mark VanDam,c and Tina M. Grieco-Calubd
a
Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle b Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables,
FL c Department of Speech and Hearing Sciences, Washington State University, Spokane d Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences,
Rush Medical College, Rush University, Chicago, IL

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Article History: Purpose: We sought to compare raw scores, standard scores, and age equiva-
Received November 3, 2022 lences on two commonly used vocabulary tests, the Peabody Picture Vocabulary
Revision received February 5, 2023 Test (PPVT) and the Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT).
Accepted March 31, 2023 Method: Sixty-two children, 31 with hearing loss (HL) and 31 with normal hear-
ing (NH), were given both the PPVT and ROWPVT as part of an ongoing longi-
Editor-in-Chief: Erinn H. Finke tudinal study of emergent literacy development in preschoolers with and without
Editor: Susan Nittrouer HL. All children were between 3 and 4 years old at administration, and the two
tests were administered within 3 weeks of each other. Both tests were given
https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_AJSLP-22-00352 again 6 months later. Standard scores and age equivalencies were calculated
for both tests using published guidelines.
Results: There was no significant effect of test for any of our analyses. How-
ever, there was a main effect of time, with both standard scores and age equiv-
alencies being significantly higher at the second test. Children with NH had sig-
nificantly higher standard scores and age equivalencies than children with NH,
but there was no interaction between hearing status and time, suggesting that
the two groups were growing at the same rate.
Conclusions: Clinicians can be comfortable administering both the PPVT and
ROWPVT to estimate children’s vocabulary levels, but there may be practice
effects when administering the tests twice within a calendar year. These data
also indicate that children with HL continue to lag behind their peers with NH
on vocabulary development.
Supplemental Material: https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.23232848

Children’s vocabulary development is fundamental skill to assess. The strong relation between vocabulary
to their future language abilities. For example, children and other language skills suggests that, in practice, vocab-
with larger vocabularies have better phonological aware- ulary can be a convenient index of a child’s developmental
ness (Rvachew, 2006) and better morphological sensitivity level. Given the importance of vocabulary for future lin-
(Duncan, 2018; Mahony et al., 2000). When learning to guistic performance, clinicians and researchers need valid
read, vocabulary is a leading indicator on reading compre- and reliable means of measuring vocabulary knowledge.
hension (Brimo et al., 2018; Quinn et al., 2015). In addi- However, standardized assessments of receptive vocabu-
tion to the fact that vocabulary is related to a host of lary are often developed and normed for typically
other language abilities, vocabulary is a particularly easy developing, typically hearing children rather than children
with communication disorders such as hearing loss (HL),
Correspondence Erin M. Ingvalson: [email protected]. Disclosure:
who may be at elevated likelihood for language delays, or
The authors have declared that no competing financial or nonfinancial have atypical developmental trajectories in their language
interests existed at the time of publication. development. Although such assessments are frequently

1610 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 32 • 1610–1619 • July 2023 • Copyright © 2023 The Authors
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
used to assess vocabulary in children with HL, it is expressive vocabulary and precedes expressive vocabulary
unknown whether different tests yield similar characteriza- in development (e.g., Fenson et al., 1994). Additionally,
tions of delay and growth trajectory in this population. tests of receptive vocabulary do not have the same kinds
Here, we compare the vocabulary trajectories of pre- of performance demands as tests of expressive vocabulary,
schoolers with and without HL as measured by two com- which require children to pronounce a given word
monly administered receptive vocabulary assessments—the sufficiently correctly as to be recognized by the test
Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Fifth Edition (PPVT-5; administrator—a skill that can be extra challenging for
Dunn, 2019) and the Receptive One-Word Picture young children with communicative disorders, including
Vocabulary Test–Fourth Edition (ROWPVT-4; Martin & HL. We similarly focus on receptive vocabulary here.
Brownell, 2011). Two common standardized tests that have been reported
in the literature are the PPVT-5 (henceforth, PPVT)
The Importance of Vocabulary in and the ROWPVT-4 (henceforth, ROWPVT). Both tests
Development use a four-alternative forced-choice design wherein the
child chooses the picture that best represents the stimulus
There is strong support for the idea that children’s word spoken by the examiner. Both tests also establish
vocabulary abilities are related to both their oral and writ- basal and ceiling metrics and utilize those metrics to
ten language skills. In particular, there is a bidirectional establish the raw score on the test. However, the rules for
association between vocabulary and phonological develop- establishing basal and ceiling metrics differ between the
ment. For example, while children more readily learn new two tests: The PPVT requires three consecutive correct
words made up of sounds that they can already produce responses for the basal versus eight consecutive correct
(e.g., Leonard, 1989), children’s vocabulary knowledge responses for the ROWPVT; the PPVT requires six con-
promotes children’s perception of phonological categories secutive incorrect responses for the ceiling versus six out
(e.g., Swingley, 2019). These associations between lexical of eight incorrect responses for the ROWPVT. The PPVT
and phonological processes can have cascading influences also has more test items than the ROWPVT (240 and
on long-term literacy outcomes as well. Having a large 190, respectively). Our experience administering the two
vocabulary gives children more information about the tests indicates that the PPVT takes longer to administer,
sounds that make up words, which can help them process although publisher estimates of administration times for
and subsequently learn new words that they encounter in both tests are 10–15 min.
spoken language (Morgan & Demuth, 1996; Pierrehumbert,
2003) and decode and learn new words in written lan- Both the PPVT and ROWPVT have been normed
guage (Duff et al., 2015; Lee, 2011). on and extensively used with typically developing children.
Both tests have also been used with a variety of children
This bidirectional association between vocabulary and identified as having a communication disorder or identi-
phonological sensitivity therefore is one factor that contrib- fied as being at an elevated likelihood of developing a
utes to the so-called rich-get-richer or “Matthew effect” communication disorder. Reliable and valid measurement
(Duff et al., 2015; Merton & Merton, 1968), such that chil- of vocabulary in children with an elevated risk of a com-
dren who know more words are more successful at learning munication disorder is particularly important, because
new words. Thus, vocabulary is associated with long-term these children often have smaller vocabularies (McGregor
literacy outcomes, such as reading comprehension, both et al., 2013, 2021) and greater weaknesses in word learn-
because it supports the phonological sensitivity skills needed ing than their typically developing peers (Gray, 2004;
to decode words, and because knowing more words allows Riches et al., 2005). Consistent with these findings, chil-
a child to recognize the meanings of familiar words and dren with early onset HL often show lower overall vocab-
infer the meanings of unfamiliar words they decode from ulary levels and shallower slopes of vocabulary growth
context. Furthermore, as many children with HL who use than children with normal hearing (NH; Ganek et al.,
cochlear implants or hearing aids and are learning a spoken 2012; Lund, 2016, 2019; Nott et al., 2009). Word learning
language have delays or difficulties in vocabulary develop- studies have demonstrated that children with HL require
ment, phonological sensitivity, and reading, it is important more presentations to learn a novel word than do their
to accurately measure vocabulary in this population. peers with NH (Houston et al., 2012; Walker & McGregor,
2013). Perhaps not surprisingly, then, children with HL
Assessing Receptive Vocabulary in Children also show weaker reading comprehension than children
With and Without HL with NH (Mayberry et al., 2011; Wendt et al., 2015;
Worsfold et al., 2018), a performance deficit that can
In much of the literature, vocabulary is often quanti- likely be at least partially attributed to children with HL’s
fied as receptive vocabulary, which is larger than a child’s lower vocabulary levels.

Ingvalson et al.: Comparing the PPVT and ROWPVT 1611

Although there is no formal normalized estimate of differences between the tests on age equivalences, analyses
the PPVT or ROWPVT, specifically for children with HL, that would not have been possible given the age range
there is extensive precedent and reporting of using both in their sample. Finally, the PPVT has undergone two
the PPVT (Cupples et al., 2018; Davidson et al., 2021; revisions and the ROWPVT has undergone three revisions
Tomblin et al., 2020) and, somewhat less frequently, the since 2002. Therefore, an explicit comparison of the cur-
ROWPVT (Halliday & Bishop, 2005; Lund et al., 2015; rent versions is warranted.
Malhotra et al., 2022) with this special population. A liter-
ature search for references to the PPVT or ROWPVT for The aim of this report is to compare the scores
children with or without HL demonstrates that the PPVT obtained by the PPVT and ROWPVT in a sample of
is cited approximately 150 times as often at the ROWPVT typically developing preschoolers and a matched sample
(see Supplemental Material S1 for search terms and of preschoolers with HL. These data were obtained as
results). The overrepresentation of the PPVT may lead to part of a larger, ongoing longitudinal study of emergent
the impression among some researchers and clinicians that literacy development in preschoolers with HL compared
PPVT and vocabulary are essentially synonymous, and with their peers with NH (Ingvalson et al., 2020). All
other vocabulary tests may be viewed as of less utility. children enrolled in the current longitudinal study were
Alternatively, in some published reports, there is no dis- administered both the PPVT and ROWPVT within
tinction made between the ROWPVT and PPVT, with the 3 weeks of each other, allowing for within-child com-
standard score from either test used as a language measure parisons. All children were between 3- and 4-year-olds
variable (see Frazier et al., 2021; Luckman et al., 2020) or when enrolled, facilitating comparisons of standard
with no distinction made between the tests as examples of scores and age equivalencies for the two tests (cf.,
probes into vocabulary (see Aikens et al., 2020), suggesting Ukrainetz & Blomquist, 2002). All children also com-
that some researchers may see the tests as interchangeable. pleted a second assessment, administered 6 months
It is therefore worth exploring whether the ROWPVT pro- later, allowing vocabulary growth to be considered in
duces scores comparable with the PPVT for both typically those children. There are three research questions: (a)
developing children and children with a communication dis- Are there differences between PPVT and ROWPVT
order (in this case, HL) both for clinicians who may not standard scores? (b) Does child hearing status influence
wish to use the PPVT and to accurately interpret research PPVT and ROWPVT standard scores? (c) Are there dif-
that has used the tests interchangeably. ferences age equivalencies provided by the PPVT and
ROWPVT?
To the best of our knowledge, there exists only one
published report comparing the two tests. Ukrainetz and
Blomquist looked at the validity of the PPVT-3 and Method
ROWPVT-1 relative to natural language samples (Ukrainetz
& Blomquist, 2002). Twenty-eight children participated, Participants
ranging in age from 3;11 to 6;0 (years;months). Standard
scores for the PPVT-3 and ROWPVT-1 were correlated, Thirty-one children with HL and 31 children with
r = 0.79 and were statistically similar for the participants. NH completed T1 and T2 assessments. All children were
Despite this lack of difference between scores, the between 3 and 4 years old at enrollment. Children with
ROWPVT-1 standard scores appeared to be more sensi- HL ranged from 36 months to 52 months (M =
tive to metrics obtained from naturalistic language sam- 43.06 months, SD = 3.89); children with NH ranged from
ples. Specifically, ROWPVT-1 standard scores were more 37 to 49 months (M = 43.26 months, SD = 3.58). Chil-
strongly correlated with number of different words (0.61 dren were evenly distributed throughout the age range. Of
vs. 0.36 for the PPVT-3), with total number of words the children with HL, nine were cochlear implant users, 17
(0.46 vs. 0.12 for the PPVT-3), and with mean length of were hearing aid users, and three used a bone-conduction
utterance (0.51 vs. 0.17 for the PPVT-3). Ukrainetz and device (device type was not reported for two children). All
Blomquist interpreted these data as indicating lower crite- children with HL were being educated using a listening
rion validity for the PPVT-3 than for the ROWPVT-1 rel- and spoken language curriculum; all children were exclu-
ative to natural language samples. There is some question, sively spoken language users. Children with HL were
however, regarding the validity of using an expressive lan- recruited from preschools specializing in a listening and
guage sample as an indicator of the validity of a receptive spoken language approach. Hearing thresholds were not
vocabulary measure (Gibson et al., 2013). Indeed, recep- obtained for the current project; however, each child com-
tive vocabulary is more often used as a means to estimate pleted a “listening check” at the beginning of each school
expressive vocabulary (Dale & Fenson, 1996; Fenson day to ensure that they were able to access spoken lan-
et al., 1994). Additionally, these data do not speak to guage. These schools also enroll peers with NH, and five

1612 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 32 • 1610–1619 • July 2023

children were recruited from these schools. The remaining eight consecutive responses correct for the basal, six out
children with NH were recruited from preschools for chil- of eight incorrect responses for the ceiling; PPVT: three
dren who are typically developing. Children were recruited consecutive correct responses for the basal, six consecutive
via flyers and letters sent home. Recruitment and consent responses incorrect for the ceiling).
were in alignment with the institutional review boards of
the University of Washington, University of Miami, Rush Statistics
University, and Washington State University, which pro-
vided institutional review board approval. Standard scores were calculated as a function of
child’s age at test and raw score using the lookup tables in
The children with HL had all received early inter- the manual. Age equivalencies were calculated as a func-
vention services for hearing, speech, and language prior to tion of raw score using the provided lookup tables. Age
enrolling in preschool. Early intervention services were equivalencies are provided in years;months and were con-
provided by specialists affiliated with the preschools. verted to months for the analyses. It is worth noting that
Thirty-seven children (21 with HL) were female. Summary the PPVT-5 and ROWPVT-4 were normed on a large
demographics are shown in Table 1. Education levels were sample of children with NH, which may not be represen-
higher for parents of children with NH than for parents of tative regarding vocabulary development for children who
children with HL, which was not unexpected (e.g., Fink are HL (Lund, 2016). However, standard vocabulary
et al., 2007). However, only approximately half of parents scores for children with HL are regularly reported in the
(18 families of a child with HL; 16 families of a child with literature as indicators of whether children are performing
NH) opted to provide socioeconomic information, limiting “in the normal range” and understanding whether stan-
the utility of these data. Nonresponses were equally dis- dard scores differ between the two tests is therefore impor-
tributed across recruitment sites, and there was no differ- tant for understanding the literature. Data were analyzed
ence in socioeconomic estimates across sites. via analyses of variance (ANOVAs).

Materials and Procedures

Results
Both the ROWPVT-4 and PPVT-5 were adminis-
tered at the T1 and T2 assessments. Assessments were Standard Scores at T1 and T2
administered using standard procedures. Specifically, stim-
ulus plates were positioned in front of the child with the Children were grouped by hearing status (HL or
examiner opposite. Examiners presented words using the NH). To evaluate whether standard scores differed, test
provided prompts and administered the practice items type, hearing status, and time at test were entered into a
prior to beginning the assessments. Basals and ceilings mixed-model ANOVA where test type and test time were
were established according to the manual (ROWPVT: the within-subjects factor. We found a significant main

Table 1. Demographic information for the children in this study.

Characteristic HL NH
n (n males) 31 (10) 31 (15)
M age at enrollment in months (SD) 43.06 (3.89) 43.26 (3.58)
Hispanic 17% 20%
Asian 8% 5%
Black or African American 0% 0%
White 71% 90%
More than one race 21% 5%
Mothers with bachelor’s degree or higher 68% 89%
Fathers with bachelor’s degree or higher 74% 100%
M age at identification in months (SD) 2.93 (4.96) —
M age at 1st amplification in months (SD) 9.78 (10.28) —
n CI users 11 —
n HA users 17 —
n bone conduction users 3 —
n bimodal CI—HA users 0 —
Note. Dashes indicate not applicable. HL = hearing loss; NH = normal hearing; CI = cochlear implant; HA = hearing aid.

Ingvalson et al.: Comparing the PPVT and ROWPVT 1613

effect of hearing status, F(1, 60) = 28.45, p < .001. Chil- equivalencies were higher at T2 (M = 53.12 months, SD =
dren with NH had higher standard scores than children 13.11) than at T1 (M = 44.64 months, SD = 12.70). There
with HL (NH M = 110.38, SD = 14.76; HL M = 94.37, was no main effect of test nor any significant interactions
SD = 13.47). There was a main effect of time, F(1, 60) = (see Figure 2).
7.22, p = .01. Scores were higher at T2 (M = 103.90,
SD = 16.09) than at T1 (M = 100.85, SD = 16.27). There Device Type
was no main effect of test nor any significant interactions
(see Figure 1). To explore whether device type influenced children’s
vocabulary levels, we first limited the sample to just the
Age Equivalent Scores children who used hearing aids (17 children) and who used
cochlear implants (11 children). Entering these data into a
Our next set of analyses compared age equivalency mixed-model ANOVA where device type was the within-
scores across the two tests. The PPVT does not provide subjects factor and test type and test time were the
age equivalency scores below 2;6; estimates below age 2;6 between-subjects factors revealed only a main effect of
are listed in the table as < 2;6. For the analyses, any age time F(1, 24) = 8.62, p = .01. As in the other analyses,
equivalency score listed as < 2;6 was coded as 2;5. Six scores at T2 (M = 96.19, SD = 14.60) were higher than
children (five with HL) were coded as having PPVT age scores at T1 (M = 91.69, SD = 13.13). There was no main
equivalencies as 2;5. No recoding was necessary for the effect of device type nor any significant interactions (see
ROWPVT as age equivalences are provided down to 1;1. Figure 3).
As with the standard scores, we entered the age equivalen-
cies into a mixed-model ANOVA where hearing status
was the between-subjects factors and test type and Discussion
test time were the within subjects factors. There was a
main effect of hearing status, F(1, 60) = 28.92, p < .001. We found no significant differences between the tests
Age equivalencies were higher for the NH children (M = when comparing their standard scores. Similarly, we
55.37 months, SD = 13.11) than for the children with HL found no differences between the ROWPVT and PPVT’s
(M = 42.39 months, SD = 10.62). There was also a calculation of age equivalencies. There was also no differ-
main effect of time, F(1, 60) = 94.65, p < .001. Age ence between the scores obtained by children who used

Figure 1. Standard scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) and Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWVPT) by
children with hearing loss or with normal hearing at T1 and T2.

1614 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 32 • 1610–1619 • July 2023

Figure 2. Age equivalencies on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) and Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWPVT)
by children with hearing loss or with normal hearing at T1 and T2.

hearing aids and children who used cochlear implants. We interpret these findings to support the use of
However, there was a significant effect of time for both either the ROWPVT or the PPVT in clinical practice,
standard scores and age equivalencies, potentially indicat- although caution should be used if testing vocabulary fre-
ing a susceptibility to practice effects. quently. The PPVT includes two test forms, which are

Figure 3. Standard scores on the Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test (PPVT) and Receptive One-Word Picture Vocabulary Test (ROWVPT) for
children who use hearing aids and children who use cochlear implants at T1 and T2.

Ingvalson et al.: Comparing the PPVT and ROWPVT 1615

meant to mitigate retest effects. Children in our study expected to have very low vocabulary levels, with the
receive a different PPVT version on each assessment, and caveat that age equivalencies can be difficult to accurately
version order is counter-balanced by participant. Despite interpret (Maloney & Larrivee, 2007; Sullivan et al.,
these precautions, the PPVT was shown here to be as sus- 2014). Similarly, the ROWPVT is normed for children as
ceptible to test–retest effects as the ROWPVT, evidenced young as 2;0, whereas the PPVT is normed for children as
by the lack of a Test × Time interaction. Although it is young as 2;6, allowing for earlier assessment of children’s
possible that the increases in scores from T1 to T2 are vocabulary, which could be important for early identifica-
reflective of vocabulary growth, which can be very rapid in tion of communication disorders. Alternatively, the PPVT
the preschool period (Dale & Fenson, 1996; Frank et al., provides a wider range of standard scores, ranging from
2017; Song et al., 2015), we note that standard scores are 20 to 160 relative to < 55 to > 145 for the ROWPVT,
meant to be sensitive to age-typical growth and we would which may make it more appropriate for individuals with
not expect a significant change across testing sessions. very low or very high vocabularies. Additionally, some
tests may be more amenable to children with communica-
The PPVT-5, published in 2018, is more recently tion disorders. We note that, although there was no signif-
updated than the ROWPVT-4, published in 2011. The icant interaction between hearing status and test, visual
more recent revision of the PPVT is reflected in the inclu- inspection suggests that children with HL may have higher
sion of words such as “emoji,” “texting,” and “tablet.” standard scores and higher age equivalencies on the
Although inclusion of these words may be reflective of ROWPVT than on the PPVT (this is most apparent in
more modern language usage, their inclusion does not sig- Figure 3). We can only speculate as to the possible rea-
nificantly impact estimates of children’s vocabulary rela- sons for this. One possible reason is the fact that equiva-
tive to the established norms. Thus, concerns about lent standard scores on the two tests require fewer correct
updated vocabulary items need not drive clinicians’ test responses (i.e., lower raw scores) for the ROWPVT than
selection, provided the most recent versions of the selected the PPVT, and lower standard scores on the PPVT may
test are used. be reflective of fatigue effects. Another possible reason is
Anecdotal evidence suggests that SLPs prefer the that differences in the norming protocols for the two tests,
PPVT to the ROWPVT. SLPs familiar with both tests including the lower norming range for the ROWPVT,
reported a belief that the larger item inventory of the may make the ROWPVT more beneficial for children
PPVT provides a better indication of children’s vocabu- with HL. Our data do not provide an indication as to
lary knowledge. A preference for the PPVT is supported whether the PPVT or ROWPVT is a more accurate repre-
by its much higher citation rate in the literature (see Sup- sentation of vocabulary in children with HL, and we leave
plemental Material S1). We note that not only does the this for future researchers and clinicians to determine.
PPVT have a larger item inventory but it also has more Additionally, we suggest that the two tests should be com-
stringent ceiling rules, requiring six consecutive incorrect pared in additional clinical populations to determine
responses. Our experience indicates that this rule leads to whether the ROWPVT leads to higher scores across a
longer testing times, as children will often know (or cor- variety of communication disorders.
rectly guess) one item out of the six. In this instance, Our data do not speak to expressive vocabulary
rules that allow for two correct responses (or guesses) tests. Both the ROWPVT and PPVT are paired to an
within the set of incorrect responses, as in the ROWPVT, expressive test, the Expressive One-Word Picture Vocabu-
can shorten testing time. Having a child progress through lary Test (EOWPVT) and the Expressive Vocabulary Test
more test items may give the impression that the test is (EVT), respectively. Expressive tests are correlated with
better at capturing the child’s word knowledge. However, their paired receptive tests, with a correlation coefficient
these differences in raw scores are unlikely to be clini- of .76 for the PPVT and EVT (Pearson Clinical)
cally significant, as the calculated standard scores and and .89 for the ROWPVT and EOWPVT (Michalec &
age equivalencies will not differ across tests. Clinicians Henninger, 2011).
may continue to opt to administer the PPVT due to
higher familiarity with the test, but it is unlikely to pro- In a recent study investigating the impacts of early
vide a meaningfully different vocabulary estimate relative intervention services on children with HL, Rudge et al.
to the ROWPVT. (2022) found that children’s vocabulary levels were within
normal limits. Our findings are in line with these data, as
Of course, there are many reasons beyond item type the children with HL in our sample had standard scores
and item inventory that might drive a clinician’s prefer- within normal limits for both the PPVT and ROWPVT.
ence for one test over another. For example, the fact that However, although scores were within the normal range,
the ROWPVT offers age equivalencies down to 1;0 could they were significantly lower than the standard scores for
be beneficial when working with children who are the children with NH. This is also consistent with previous

1616 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 32 • 1610–1619 • July 2023

research, where multiple studies have found significant standard scores and age equivalencies, potentially indica-
deficits in vocabulary levels for children with HL relative tive of practice effects. We argue that clinicians can there-
to children with NH (for a meta-analysis, see Lund, fore be confident that both tests provide a valid estimate
2016). Both groups of children showed growth in vocabu- of children’s vocabulary knowledge, at least for children
lary between T1 and T2, but they grew at similar rates, who are typically developing and children with HL who
evidenced by the lack of an interaction between test time are spoken language users.
and hearing status. Because children with HL and children
with NH are growing their vocabularies at similar rates,
it is unlikely that the children with HL will catch up
(Nicholas & Geers, 2007; Nittrouer et al., 2012). As these Data Availability Statement
assessments were only 6 months apart, it is possible that
children with HL will show steeper rates of growth as pre- The data sets generated during this study are avail-
school progresses that would allow them to catch up with able from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
their peers with NH, but it is more likely that additional
intervention will be needed if vocabulary levels for chil- Acknowledgments
dren with HL are to match those of children with NH
(Alqraini & Paul, 2020; Antia et al., 2021; Lund, 2018; This work was supported by NIH grant R01DC017984
Moeller, 2000). (PIs: Ingvalson, Grieco-Calub, Perry, VanDam). We wish to
thank Child’s Voice, The Debbie School, The HOPE
School of Spokane, Listen & Talk, and the McGaw
Limitations YMCA for assisting in data collection. We also wish to
thank the families whose children participated.
Socioeconomic data were collected via parental
questionnaire and approximately half of families declined
to provide these data. Not only does this limit the sample References
size for SES but it is also probable that families who
choose not to provide these data differ from those that Aikens, N., West, J., McKee, K., Moiduddin, E., Atkins-Burnett,
do. Difficulties recruiting and retaining racially, ethnically, S., & Xue, Y. (2020). Screening approaches for determining
and socioeconomically diverse samples are well docu- the language of assessment for dual language learners: Evi-
dence from head start and a universal preschool initiative.
mented (Huer & Saenz, 2003; Lander et al., 2019), limit- Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 51, 39–54. https://doi.
ing our ability to determine how these factors relate to org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.07.008
vocabulary development for children with HL. We will Alqraini, F. M., & Paul, P. V. (2020). The effects of a vocabulary
continue to seek to recruit a representative, diverse sam- intervention on teaching multiple-meaning words to students
ple, and to obtain accurate estimates of socioeconomic who are d/Deaf and hard of hearing. The Journal of Deaf
Studies and Deaf Education, 25(4), 469–489. https://doi.org/10.
status, which we hope will allow us to further explore 1093/deafed/enaa015
these questions in the future. Antia, S. D., Catalano, J. A., Rivera, M. C., & Creamer, C.
(2021). Explicit and contextual vocabulary intervention:
Although data collection is ongoing, at this time, only Effects on word and definition learning. The Journal of Deaf
T1 and T2 assessments were available. We therefore cannot Studies and Deaf Education, 26(3), 381–394. https://doi.org/10.
make any statements regarding longitudinal vocabulary 1093/deafed/enab002
growth. Additional time points would allow us to determine Brimo, D., Lund, E., & Sapp, A. (2018). Syntax and reading com-
whether vocabulary growth rates for preschoolers with HL prehension: A meta-analysis of different spoken-syntax assess-
ments. International Journal of Language & Communication Dis-
allow them to catch up to their peers with NH, data that orders, 53(3), 431–445. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.12362
could have important implications for intervention. Cupples, L., Ching, T. Y. C., Button, L., Leigh, G., Marnane, V.,
Whitfield, J., Gunnourie, M., & Martin, L. (2018). Language
and speech outcomes of children with hearing loss and addi-
tional disabilities: Identifying the variables that influence per-
Conclusions formance at five years of age. International Journal of Audiol-
ogy, 57(Suppl. 2), S93–S104. https://doi.org/10.1080/14992027.
We found no significant differences between the 2016.1228127
PPVT-5 and ROWPVT-4 on standard score or age equiv- Dale, P. S., & Fenson, L. (1996). Lexical development norms
for young children. Behavior Research Methods, Instru-
alencies. Although children with NH consistently had
ments, & Computers, 28(1), 125–127. https://doi.org/10.3758/
higher scores than children with HL, within each hearing- BF03203646
status, grouping standard scores were equivalent. How- Davidson, L., Osman, A., & Geers, A. (2021). The effects of early
ever, we found a significant effect of test time on both intervention on language growth after age 3 for children with

Ingvalson et al.: Comparing the PPVT and ROWPVT 1617

permanent hearing loss. Journal of Early Hearing Detection hearing loss. Frontiers in Psychology, 11, 39. https://doi.org/
and Intervention, 6(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.26077/aa92- 10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00039
7cb7 Lander, J., Langhof, H., & Dierks, M.-L. (2019). Involving
Duff, D., Tomblin, J. B., & Catts, H. (2015). The influence of patients and the public in medical and health care research
reading on vocabulary growth: A case for a Matthew effect. studies: An exploratory survey on participant recruiting and
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 58(3), representativeness from the perspective of study authors.
853–864. https://doi.org/10.1044/2015_JSLHR-L-13-0310 PLOS ONE, 14(1), Article e0204187. https://doi.org/10.1371/
Duncan, L. G. (2018). Language and reading: The role of mor- journal.pone.0204187
pheme and phoneme awareness. Current Developmental Disor- Lee, J. (2011). Size matters: Early vocabulary as a predictor of
ders Reports, 5(4), 226–234. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40474- language and literacy competence. Applied Psycholinguistics,
018-0153-2 32(1), 69–92. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716410000299
Dunn, D. M. (2019). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test–Fifth edition. Leonard, L. B. (1989). Language learnability and specific lan-
Pearson. guage impairment in children. Applied Psycholinguistics, 10(2),
Fenson, L., Dale, P. S., Reznick, J. S., Bates, E., Thal, D. J., 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0142716400008511
Pethick, S. J., Tomasello, M., Mervis, C. B., & Stiles, J. Luckman, C., Wagovich, S. A., Weber, C., Brown, B., Chang,
(1994). Variability in early communicative development. S.-E., Hall, N. E., & Ratner, N. B. (2020). Lexical diversity
Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, and lexical skills in children who stutter. Journal of Fluency
59(5), 1–185. https://doi.org/10.2307/1166093 Disorders, 63, 105747. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfludis.2020.
Fink, N. E., Wang, N.-Y., Visaya, J., Niparko, J. K., Quittner, 105747
A., Eisenberg, L. S., & Tobey, E. A. (2007). Childhood Devel- Lund, E. (2016). Vocabulary knowledge of children with cochlear
opment After Cochlear Implantation (CDaCI) study: Design implants: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Deaf Studies and
and baseline characteristics. Cochlear Implants International, Deaf Education, 21(2), 107–121. https://doi.org/doi:10.1093/
8(2), 92–116. https://doi.org/10.1002/cii.333 deafed/env060
Frank, M. C., Braginsky, M., Yurovsky, D., & Marchman, V. A. Lund, E. (2018). The effects of parent training on vocabulary
(2017). Wordbank: An open repository for developmental scores of young children with hearing loss. American Journal
vocabulary data. Journal of Child Language, 44(3), 677–694. of Speech-Language Pathology, 27(2), 765–777. https://doi.org/
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0305000916000209 10.1044/2018_AJSLP-16-0239
Frazier, T. W., Klingemier, E. W., Anderson, C. J., Gengoux, Lund, E. (2019). Comparing word characteristic effects on vocab-
G. W., Youngstrom, E. A., & Hardan, A. Y. (2021). A longi- ulary of children with cochlear implants. The Journal of Deaf
tudinal study of language trajectories and treatment outcomes Studies and Deaf Education, 24(4), 424–434. https://doi.org/10.
of early intensive behavioral intervention for autism. Journal 1093/deafed/enz015
of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 51(12), 4534–4550. Lund, E., Werfel, K. L., & Schuele, C. M. (2015). Phonological
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10803-021-04900-5 awareness and vocabulary performance of monolingual and
Ganek, H., McConkey Robbins, A., & Niparko, J. K. (2012). bilingual preschool children with hearing loss. Child Language
Language outcomes after cochlear implantation. Otolaryngo- Teaching and Therapy, 31(1), 85–100. https://doi.org/10.1177/
logic Clinics of North America, 45(1), 173–185. https://doi.org/ 0265659014531261
10.1016/j.otc.2011.08.024 Mahony, D., Singson, M., & Mann, V. (2000). Reading ability
Gibson, B. S., Gondoli, D. M., Kronenberger, W. G., Johnson, and sensitivity to morphological relations. Reading and Writ-
A. C., Steeger, C. M., & Morrissey, R. A. (2013). Exploration ing, 12(3), 191–218. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1008136012492
of an adaptive training regimen that can target the secondary Malhotra, P. S., Densky, J., Melachuri, M., Melachuri, S.,
memory component of working memory capacity. Memory & Onwuka, A., Winner, K., Lucius, S., & Findlen, U. (2022).
Cognition, 41(5), 726–737. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13421-013- The impact of cochlear implantation on speech and language
0295-8 outcomes in children with asymmetric sensorineural hearing
Gray, S. (2004). Word learning by preschoolers with specific loss. International Journal of Pediatric Otorhinolaryngology,
language impairment: Predictors and poor learners. Journal 152, 110979. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijporl.2021.110979
of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 47(5), 1117– Maloney, E. S., & Larrivee, L. S. (2007). Limitations of age-
1132. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2004/083) equivalent scores in reporting the results of norm-referenced
Halliday, L. F., & Bishop, D. V. M. (2005). Frequency discrimi- tests. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Dis-
nation and literacy skills in children with mild to moderate orders, 34(Fall), 86–93. https://doi.org/10.1044/cicsd_34_F_86
sensorineural hearing loss. Journal of Speech, Language, and Martin, N. A., & Brownell, R. (2011). Receptive One-Word Pic-
Hearing Research, 48(5), 1187–1203. https://doi.org/10.1044/ ture Vocabulary Test. Pro-Ed.
1092-4388(2005/083) Mayberry, R. I., del Giudice, A. A., & Lieberman, A. M. (2011).
Houston, D. M., Stewart, J., Moberly, A. C., Hollich, G., & Reading achievement in relation to phonological coding and
Miyamoto, R. T. (2012). Word learning in deaf children with awareness in deaf readers: A meta-analysis. The Journal of
cochlear implants: Effects of early auditory experience. Devel- Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 16(2), 164–188. https://doi.
opmental Science, 15(3), 448–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j. org/10.1093/deafed/enq049
1467-7687.2012.01140.x McGregor, K. K., Oleson, J., Bahnsen, A., & Duff, D. (2013).
Huer, M. B., & Saenz, T. I. (2003). Challenges and strategies for Children with developmental language impairment have
conducting survey and focus group research with culturally vocabulary deficits characterized by limited breadth and
diverse groups. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathol- depth. International Journal of Language & Communication
ogy, 12(2), 209–220. https://doi.org/10.1044/1058-0360(2003/ Disorders, 48(3), 307–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/1460-6984.
067) 12008
Ingvalson, E. M., Grieco-Calub, T. M., Perry, L. K., & VanDam, McGregor, K. K., Van Horne, A. O., Curran, M., Cook, S. W.,
M. (2020). Rethinking emergent literacy in children with & Cole, R. (2021). The challenge of rich vocabulary

1618 American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology • Vol. 32 • 1610–1619 • July 2023

instruction for children with developmental language disorder. of age at enrollment in specialized early intervention. The
Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 52(2), Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education, 27, 262−268.
467–484. https://doi.org/10.1044/2020_LSHSS-20-00110 https://doi.org/10.1093/deafed/enac009
Merton, R. K., & Merton, R. C. (1968). Social theory and social Rvachew, S. (2006). Longitudinal predictors of implicit phonol-
structure. Simon & Schuster. ogical awareness skills. American Journal of Speech-
Michalec, D., & Henninger, N. (2011). Expressive One-Word Pic- Language Pathology, 15(2), 165–176. https://doi.org/10.1044/
ture Vocabulary Test. In J. S. Kreutzer, J. DeLuca, & B. 1058-0360(2006/016)
Caplan (Eds.), Encyclopedia of clinical neuropsychology (pp. Song, S., Su, M., Kang, C., Liu, H., Zhang, Y., McBride-Chang,
1000–1002). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-79948- C., Tardif, T., Li, H., Liang, W., Zhang, Z., & Shu, H.
3_1544 (2015). Tracing children’s vocabulary development from pre-
Moeller, M. P. (2000). Early intervention and language develop- school through the school-age years: An 8-year longitudinal
ment in children who are deaf and hard of hearing. Pediatrics, study. Developmental Science, 18(1), 119–131. https://doi.org/
106(3), e43–e43. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.106.3.e43 10.1111/desc.12190
Morgan, J. L., & Demuth, K. (Eds.). (1996). Signal to syntax: Sullivan, J. R., Winter, S. M., Sass, D. A., & Svenkerud, N.
Bootstrapping from speech to grammar in early acquisition. (2014). Assessing growth in young children: A comparison of
Psychology Press. raw, age-equivalent, and standard scores using the Peabody
Nicholas, J. G., & Geers, A. E. (2007). Will they catch up? The Picture Vocabulary Test. Journal of Research in Childhood
role of age at cochlear implantation in the spoken language Education, 28(2), 277–291. https://doi.org/10.1080/02568543.
development of children with severe to profound hearing loss. 2014.883453
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 50(4), Swingley, D. (2019). Learning phonology from surface distribu-
1048–1062. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2007/073) tions, considering Dutch and English vowel duration. Lan-
Nittrouer, S., Caldwell, A., Lowenstein, J. H., Tarr, E., & guage Learning and Development, 15(3), 199–216. https://doi.
Holloman, C. (2012). Emergent literacy in kindergartners with org/10.1080/15475441.2018.1562927
cochlear implants. Ear and Hearing, 33(6), 683–697. https:// Tomblin, J. B., Oleson, J., Ambrose, S. E., Walker, E. A., &
doi.org/10.1097/AUD.0b013e318258c98e Moeller, M. P. (2020). Early literacy predictors and second-
Nott, P., Cowan, R., Brown, P., & Wigglesworth, G. (2009). grade outcomes in children who are hard of hearing. Child
Early language development in children with profound hear- Development, 91(1), e179–e197. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.
ing loss fitted with a device at a young age: Part I—The time 13158
period taken to acquire first words and first word combina- Ukrainetz, T. A., & Blomquist, C. (2002). The criterion validity
tions. Ear and Hearing, 30(5), 526–540. https://doi.org/10. of four vocabulary tests compared with a language sample.
1097/AUD.0b013e3181a9ea14 Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 18(1), 59–78. https://
Pierrehumbert, J. B. (2003). Phonetic diversity, statistical learning, doi.org/10.1191/0265659002ct227oa
and acquisition of phonology. Language and Speech, 46(2–3), Walker, E. A., & McGregor, K. K. (2013). Word learning pro-
115–154. https://doi.org/10.1177/00238309030460020501 cesses in children with cochlear implants. Journal of Speech,
Quinn, J. M., Wagner, R. K., Petscher, Y., & Lopez, D. (2015). Language, and Hearing Research, 56(2), 375–387. https://doi.
Developmental relations between vocabulary knowledge and org/10.1044/1092-4388(2012/11-0343)
reading comprehension: A latent change score modeling Wendt, D., Kollmeier, B., & Brand, T. (2015). How hearing
study. Child Development, 86(1), 159–175. https://doi.org/10. impairment affects sentence comprehension: Using eye fixa-
1111/cdev.12292 tions to investigate the duration of speech processing. Trends
Riches, N. G., Tomasello, M., & Conti-Ramsden, G. (2005). Verb in Hearing, 19, 2331216515584149. https://doi.org/10.1177/
learning in children with SLI: Frequency and spacing effects. 2331216515584149
Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research, 48(6), Worsfold, S., Mahon, M., Pimperton, H., Stevenson, J., &
1397–1411. https://doi.org/10.1044/1092-4388(2005/097) Kennedy, C. (2018). Predicting reading ability in teenagers
Rudge, A. M., Coto, J., Oster, M.-M., Brooks, B. M., Soman, who are deaf or hard of hearing: A longitudinal analysis of
U., Rufsvold, R., & Cejas, I. (2022). Vocabulary outcomes for language and reading. Research in Developmental Disabilities,
5-year-old children who are deaf or hard of hearing: Impact 77, 49–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ridd.2018.04.007

Ingvalson et al.: Comparing the PPVT and ROWPVT 1619

Copyright of American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology is the property of American
Speech-Language-Hearing Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to
multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.