Skip to main content
. 2023 Feb 16;23:354. doi: 10.1186/s12889-023-15245-2

Table 2.

Language Environment Analysis (LENA) outcome differences between urban and rural households

Groups Rural northwestern China sample
(N = 38)
Urban Shanghai sample
(N = 22)
Obs Mean (SD) Obs Mean (SD)
(1) (2) (3) (4)
(1) Full sample AWC 38 13,428 22 21,098
(6,058) (7,693)
(2) Upper 50% AWC 19 17,847 11 27,035
(5,436) (6,007)
(3) Lower 50% AWC 19 9,010 11 15,160
(2,160) (3,261)
(4) Full sample CTC 38 559 22 751
(267) (287)
(5) Upper 50% CTC 19 763 11 986
(209) (203)
(6) Lower 50% CTC 19 354 11 515
(120) (103)
(7) Full sample CVC 38 2,140 - -
(737) -
(8) Upper 50% CVC 19 2,755 - -
(418) -
(9) Lower 50% CVC 19 1,526 - -
(380) -
-
(10) Full sample CDI 38 45 - -
(25) -
(11) Upper 50% CDI 19 65 - -
(20) -
(12) Lower 50% CDI 19 25 - -
(9) -

Source: Column 1 (“Rural northwestern China sample”) is from the authors’ survey. Column 2 (“Urban Shanghai sample”) is from Zhang et al. 2015.

Note: This table utilized data from urban Shanghai (Zhang et al., 2015). According to Zhang et al. (2015), volunteer parents of 22 children aged 3 to 23 months were recruited for their Shanghai sample. To recruit the participants, the Shanghai study team used flyers, emails, and word of mouth. A total of 22 participants were selected to record language development based on age group balance. Families provided daylong, in-home audio recordings using LENA. Three LENA recordings were collected over a 2-week period for each family to provide a stable estimate of the home language environment. Audio samples for the validation analyses were randomly drawn from one recording per family. The standard recording period was 16 h but given variability across families with respect to start and end times the Shanghai study restricted the potential sampling range to the 12 h between 9 am to 9 pm.