Table A.3.

Description of interim models

Gaze Duration. When Literacy was entered into the model and the interactions tested, results showed that the greater the child’s Literacy z-score, the shorter was Gaze duration (coefficient = −79.9 ms, p <.001). Children’s Literacy did not predict differences in Gaze duration between plausible and implausible words. Their Gaze duration time increased from fall to spring (coef = 43.88, p = .027). Results were similar for Academic Language. Children with stronger academic language skills had shorter fitted means (−47.0, p=.011) and shorter Gaze duration in the spring (coef = 42.0, p=.008) compared to children with weaker Academic Language. Academic Language did not predict differences between plausible and implausible words.

Reread Time. Literacy score had no significant effect on the fitted mean Reread time, the difference between plausible and implausible words, or on session. Therefore interaction terms were not included in the final model. When Academic Language was considered, there was no significant effect of Academic Language on overall Reread times. However, the difference in Reread times for plausible and implausible targets were grader as students’ fall than Academic Language was greater (coef = 66.44, p = .005). Therefore, for the final models, we included both Literacy and Academic Language as main effects in the model with interaction effects included for Academic Language but not Literacy (see Table 2). We ran the same model for Gaze duration and Reread time. Hence, all results control for children’s Literacy z-score.