Contributions of Understanding and Evaluation Prompts to the Development of Children’s Language Skills and Related Emotions During Shared Book Reading

Contributions of Understanding and Evaluation Prompts to the Development of Children’s Language Skills and Related Emotions During Shared Book Reading | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Contributions of Understanding and Evaluation Prompts to the Development of Children’s Language Skills and Related Emotions During Shared Book Reading Renyi Jin, Yang Dong, Haoyuan Zheng, Yunyi Xiang, Yingying Peng This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-7332214/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract Shared book reading (SBR) is considered an appropriate approach to enhance children’s language development. Meanwhile, Bloom’s Taxonomy serves as an evaluative tool for assessing cognitive competencies and a scaffold for designing educational activities considered intellectually rigorous. However, the contributions of SBR prompts to children’s language abilities and related emotions remain unclear, particularly the impacts of understanding prompts (UPs) and evaluating prompts (EPs) on the development of their language abilities and related emotions. To address this gap, the current study recruited 96 ADHD children and 113 typically developing (TD) children. After 12 weeks of SBR intervention, the results showed that embedding prompts into SBR significantly enhanced children’s language development. In particular, amongst the TD children, the UP group performed better than the EP group in terms of reading interest. However, the EP group performed better than the UP group in terms of expressive vocabulary and syntax. Moreover, amongst the ADHD children, the UP group had higher scores in syntax and reading interest than the EP group. This study sheds lights on parental prompt selection to help enhance children’s language development during book reading activities. shared book reading children prompts ADHD language learning Introduction Shared book reading (SBR) refers to a parent–child interactive book reading activity in which parents present multiple interactive prompts to their children during a book reading session (Dowdall et al., 2020 ; Heidlage et al., 2020 ; Knauer et al., 2020 ). Past studies have suggested that SBR with appropriate prompts significantly enhanced children’s early literacy skills (Canfield et al., 2020 ; Clemens & Kegel, 2021 ; Weadman et al., 2023 ) and related positive emotional development (Canfield et al., 2020 ; Dowdall et al., 2020 ). Bloom’s Taxonomy (Seaman, 2011 ) further categorised such prompts into lower- (e.g. understand) and higher- (e.g. evaluate) order thinking categories. High-order prompts promote children’s critical thinking, reasoning abilities and creative expression, allowing them to establish deeper connections and foster a stronger sense of achievement that, in turn, enhances their reading interest (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001 ; Seaman, 2011 ). In contrast, low-order prompts support the development of foundational reading skills. However, this may limit children’s engagement to a superficial level, thus preventing them from delving into the deeper aspects of reading (Seaman, 2011 ). To date, the contribution of SBR prompts to children’s language abilities and related emotions remains unclear, particularly the impacts of understanding prompts (UPs) and evaluating prompts (EPs) on the development of children’s language abilities and related emotions. Compared with typically developing (TD) children, those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) face more challenges in SBR due to impairments in their executive function (Denton et al., 2020 ; McDougal et al., 2022 ; Parks et al., 2022 ), emotional regulation (Breaux et al., 2021 ; Groves et al., 2022 ) and their reading speed and accuracy (Denton et al., 2020 ; Groves et al., 2022 ; Parks et al., 2022 ). These impairments not only hinder their ability to process and retain text information but also negatively affect their language skills. This, in turn, limits their capacity to connect with the emotional content of stories, further affecting their emotional development. However, whether the contribution of SBR prompts have varying impact patterns on the language abilities and related emotions of ADHD and TD children remains unclear. Therefore, the current study expands the current literature by further categorising SBR prompts into lower- and higher-order thinking prompts. This facilitates the investigation of the contributions of UP and EP to the development of the language skills and related emotions of TD and ADHD children. Literature Review Prompts and Children’s Language Learning In the context of SBR, prompts are designed to stimulate cognitive engagement and expressive output, often taking the form of open- or closed-ended questions (Blum et al., 2010 ; Fielding & Pearson, 1994 ). These prompts have been shown to significantly enhance children’s language skills and emotional development (Aram & Aviram, 2009 ; Beazidou et al., 2013 ; Doyle & Bramwell, 2006 ). For example, Yang et al. (2024) demonstrated that discussion prompts in bilingual e-books improved English comprehension amongst Chinese children. Similarly, Adesope et al. ( 2010 ) concluded that bilingual children developed greater cognitive flexibility through such prompts. Discussion prompts have also been proven effective in enhancing self-regulation and adaptability in multilingual settings (Yang et al., 2024; Niu et al., 2021 ). To further optimise the effectiveness of these prompts, Bloom’s Taxonomy provides a valuable framework for categorising cognitive processes and, consequently, designing prompts targeting specific levels of thinking. Bloom’s Taxonomy also serves as an evaluative tool for assessing cognitive competencies and a scaffold for designing educational activities deemed intellectually rigorous (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001 ; Forehand, 2005 ). Empirical evidence has demonstrated that Bloom’s Taxonomy is particularly effective in guiding the design of various educational interventions (Adams, 2015 ; Krathwohl, 2002 ). UPs and EPs are two typical prompts representing higher- and lower-orders of thinking within Bloom’s Taxonomy. On the one hand, UPs refer to the ability to interpret, summarise and explain information, enabling individuals to make sense of texts and connect them to their existing knowledge (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001 ; Krathwohl, 2002 ). On the other hand, EPs refer to the processes of making judgments, justifying opinions and engaging in critical thinking and self-reflection, which build upon the ability to first understand and then interpret information (Anderson & Krathwohl, 2001; Krathwohl, 2002 ). However, the contributions of UPs and EPs to children’s language skills and related emotional development remain unclear. SBR and Language Development SBR is a multifaceted educational tool that promotes the development of children’s language and literacy skills. This type of activity promotes children’s language development by immersing them in a rich linguistic environment through multiple rounds of interactive prompts–answer sessions. Current studies have demonstrated that SBR significantly enhances children’s receptive and expressive vocabularies (Lenhart et al., 2021; Towson et al., 2021 ; Yorke et al., 2018 ), syntactic skills (Grover et al., 2024; Lacin, 2024; Van der Wilt et al., 2022 ) and reading interest development (Hoyne & Egan, 2019 ; McNally et al., 2024; Mills-Smith, 2024 ). However, the effects of UPs and EPs on the development of children’s language abilities and reading interest during SBR activities remain unclear. SBR and ADHD Children ADHD children are characterised by persistent patterns of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity that interfere with their functioning or development, leading to a range of various emotional, psychological and learning problems (Furman, 2005 ; Miller et al., 2013 ). ADHD children often struggle with certain tasks, such as extracting information and understanding story structures and causal relationships, which can hinder the development of their language skills and reading interest (Lee & Zentall, 2012 ; Niu et al., 2021 ). Miller and colleagues conducted a study involving 27 ADHD children and 27 TD children and found that the former exhibit difficulties in extracting information and comprehending narrative structures and causal relations, particularly demonstrating a deficit in recalling central information. Compared to TD children, about 25–40% of ADHD children exhibit some form of reading disorder (Dykman & Ackerman, 1991 ; McGee & Share, 1988 ; Semrud-Clikeman et al., 1992 ). The Current Study To address the aforementioned research gaps, the current study aimed to address two research questions (RQs): RQ1 Do SBR prompts (UPs and EPs) enhance the language skills and reading interest of TD and ADHD children? It is hypothesised that children who received either UPs or EPs achieved significantly positive language skills and reading interest development. RQ2 Do UP and EP have different effects on the language skills and reading interest of TD and ADHD children? It is hypothesised that ADHD children who received UPs had better language skills and reading interest development than those who received EPs. Furthermore, it is hypothesised that TD children who received EPs had better language skills and reading interest development than those who received UPs. Methods Participants Using an online advertisement, the current study allocated an online questionnaire to kindergarteners’ guardians and asked them to (1) indicate whether they would like their children to attend the SBR program, (2) voluntarily report potential ADHD-related behavioural concerns in their children and (3) present basic demographic information. These guardians received a small financial reward for their participations. Afterwards, we invited a licensed psychologist to conduct structured clinical assessments using the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM − 5) to confirm the children’s ADHD diagnosis. The ADHD diagnostic procedure included a clinically developed semistructured interview that assessed ADHD symptoms and additional criteria for ADHD based on the DSM, including age of onset, functional impairments and ruling out of other possible causes, such as mood, anxiety and adjustment, for ADHD symptomatology. Finally, a total of 209 third-grade kindergarten students and their parents were recruited. The participants and their families—who were all living in a southern city in China—were ranked in the low- to middle-income groups. Amongst these children, 96 were diagnosed with ADHD, whilst 113 children were diagnosed as TD without any behavioural disorders (e.g. eating problems). All the students were clustered by gender and randomly assigned into three groups: UP, EP and control. During the intervention, 2 ADHD children dropped out from the study due to medical problems, leaving 207 families to complete the entire intervention and participate in the posttest. The UP group included 37 TD children (18 boys, 19 girls, Mean age = 5.37, SD = .29) and 32 ADHD children (25 boys, 7 girls, Mean age = 5.41, SD = .28). The EP group included 39 TD children (20 boys, 19 girls, Mean age = 5.51, SD = .29) and 31 ADHD children (26 boys, 5 girls, Mean age = 5.48, SD = .28). Finally, the control group included 37 TD children (20 boys, 17 girls, Mean age = 5.45, SD = .33) and 31 ADHD children (24 boys, 7 girls, Mean age = 5.47, SD = .30). Measures Receptive Vocabulary This study used the Tong’s (2017) Chinese Receptive Vocabulary Test to examine the students’ Chinese receptive vocabulary. The test contained 60 items presented with an increasing level of difficulty. The children were asked to orally select one picture from four potential choices to match the semantic meaning of a one- or two-character word uttered twice by the experimenter. Each correct answer was given 1 point. This test had a maximum score of 60, and a Cronbach’s α of .91. Expressive Vocabulary The Chinese version of Martin and Brownell’s (2011) Expressive Vocabulary Test was used to examine the students’ Chinese expressive vocabulary. The test had 60 items in which the children were required to produce a word that best matched the meaning of the presented picture. Each correct score was given 1 point. The maximum score was 60, and the Cronbach’s α was .89. Syntax This study used the Hung and Loh’s ( 2021 ) word order task to examine the students’ basic awareness of Chinese sentence structure (e.g. subject-verb-object). Here, the children were required to identify the correct sequences for three- to six-sentence elements [Example item: Question Presentation: 1. 是 (am/is/are), 2. 学生 (student), 3. 小红 (Hong), 4. 好 (good) and 5. 一名 (a/one); Correct answer: 小红是一名好学生 (‘Hong is a good student.’)]. The word order task contained 10 items, and each correct answer was given 1 point. The maximum score was 10, and the Cronbach’s α was .87. Reading Interest Questionnaire This study used Zhang and Xin’s Chinese Reading Interest Scale to measure the children’s reading interest. This scale contained six 5-point items. The instructor read aloud each item twice, and the children were required to select one mark [(^0^) = highly agree = 4, (◠‿◠) = agree = 3, (ôูô) = disagree = 2, (╥๏╥) = highly disagree = 1] on a 4-point scale that best matched their current opinion (example item: ‘I enjoy reading books’). Higher scores represented higher levels of children’s intrinsic interest in book reading activities. The maximum score was 24, and the Cronbach’s α was .85. Nonverbal Intelligence This study used the full version of Raven’s Progressive Matrices (Raven et al., 1996) to examine the students’ nonverbal intelligence. This test featured 60 items divided into five sections containing12 items each. The children were asked to identify one answer from the given 6–8 options to best complete the given picture. Each correct answer was given a score of 1, and a child can receive a maximum score of 60. The test in the current study had a Cronbach’s α of 0.87. Procedure The current study obtained ethical approval from the authors’ IRB committee. Parents’ consent and children’s oral assent were also collected. Before the SBR intervention, all the participating parents were given a questionnaire to obtain demographic information about their children. We required that the educators (i.e. parents) should be the same one to implement SBR to their children throughout the 12-week intervention. All the students were administered the pretests inside a silent classroom in their school. The pretests included Raven’s test, receptive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary, syntax and reading interest. During the 12-week intervention, all the parents in the three groups (EP, UP and control) read books to their children twice a week, as required. To examine the contributions of UPs and EPs to children’s language development, we applied prompts with simplified direction feedback (e.g. correct and wrong) to children during SBR. The parents were also required to audio record the book reading activities and submit the recordings to the research team for fidelity check, including the book titles and the dates during which the SBR activities were implemented. All audio recordings must be uploaded to a designated Baidu Drive folder before each Sunday. The research team transcribed the audio recordings to check the fidelity of book reading. For example, we quantified (1) the length of each parent–child book reading activity, (2) the prompts used in each book reading activity and (3) the frequency of other unexpected behaviours (e.g. further explanation on the conversation). To ensure that all parent–children book reading sessions went smoothly, the research team regularly contacted the parents via phone calls twice a week during the 12-week intervention. After 12 weeks of the parent–child SBR, posttests on the same language measures employed in the pretests were administered to all the children. Reading Materials The current study selected 12 narrative storybooks that were successfully used in previous studies. As these books contained numerous pictures and did not heavily rely on written text, they were appropriate materials to enhance the language development of the TD and ADHD children during SBR. In accordance with the research purpose, the research team further revised the content by adding cues and requirements for prompts (UPs and EPs) and then allocating them to the families in the UP, EP and control groups. Hint questions were only given to the UP and EP groups. The selected 12 storybooks had similar levels of reading difficulty in terms of sentence length and syntax. These storybooks also contained the top 500 most frequently used Chinese characters commonly found in books. Understanding Prompts (UP) Group Before the formal SBR intervention, all the parents were given a 90-minute workshop to train them in the proper use of UP techniques. The research team followed Akemoglu and Tomeny’s (2021) suggestion to implement workshops, including providing definitions and examples of UPs to parents, elaborating on each key point of UPs during SBR [e.g. 小鱼为什么认为这顶帽子’不是我的’༟(Why does the little fish think that the hat ‘is not mine’?) ] and playing video recordings to show how researchers used UPs to children during SBR. Afterwards, the parents played the role of educator whilst the trained research assistants (RAs) played the role of children. The research team provided one practice item to parents to implement UPs to the RAs. The research team members checked the parents’ prompt and feedback performance to assess whether they were able to master the UP techniques during the SBR simulation. The members provided a second round of training for parents who have not yet mastered the UP technique. Each family in the UP group received 12 narrative storybooks in total, with only one book given every Monday morning of each week. We gave the parents printed copies of UP hints, a guideline with UP techniques and sample prompts that can be used with these 12 books. They read with their child using UPs twice a week, 20 minutes each time, for 12 weeks. In particular, the parents were required to ask their children relevant questions about the storybook content using UPs and support the children as they attempted to answer the questions. Evaluation Prompts (EP) Group The research team provided this group a 90-minute workshop with the same training agenda as the UP group, with one major difference: we used EP technique elaboration content instead. All parents in the EP group received training on how to stimulate their children’s critical thinking (e.g. moral judgment, hypothetical reasoning and value reflection) to encourage them to articulate their opinions and justify their reasoning. Before the intervention, all parents in the EP group were provided with the same set of storybooks and guideline as the parents in the UP group. All the parents in the EP group also received just one book every Monday morning of each week. However, we modified the 12 storybooks to contain EP hints and gave them guidelines for using EP techniques rather than for UPs. One sample item of EP during SBR is as follows: 如果小鱼向大鱼道歉并归还帽子, 故事的结局可能会有什么不同༟(‘If the little fish had apologised and returned the hat to the big fish, how might the ending be different?’). The parents in the EP group read with their child using EPs twice a week, 20 minutes each time, for 12 weeks. Control Group Parents in the control group implemented typical book reading activities to their children as they normally would, without receiving systematic SBR technique training. The parents in this group received the same books each week but without the prompt question hints and the technique guidelines. Each family received only one book every Monday morning of each week throughout the 12-week period. They were asked to read each book as they normally would, twice a week, 20 minutes each time. The parents in the control group also needed to submit audio recordings to the research team at assigned time slots, similar to the parents in the UP and EP groups. After 12 weeks of SBR, the research team provided another workshop for the control group to train these parents in using prompt techniques in their SBR activities. Data Analysis The current study used the chi-square and ANOVA tests to examine the baselines (age, gender composition and language task performances prior to the intervention) of the UP, EP and control groups amongst the TD and ADHD children. The current study used MANCOVA to compare the intervention effects on the children’s language development. The current study used partial eta-squared ( η 2 ) as effect size, with partial values of η 2 = .01, .06 and .14 indicating small, medium and large effect sizes, respectively, following the rule of thumb for effect sizes (Cohen, 1988). Results Baseline Comparison The results of the ANOVA and chi-square tests showed that the three groups did not significantly differ at pretest on the following variables: age [TD: F (2, 110) = 2.47, p = .09, partial η 2 = .043; ADHD: F (2, 91) = .51, p = .60, partial η 2 =.011], gender composition [TD: χ 2 (2, 110) = .22, p = .90, partial η 2 < 0.002; ADHD: χ 2 (2, 91) = .48, p = .79, partial η 2 = 0.005], nonverbal intelligence [ F (2, 110) = .08, p = .93, partial η 2 = .001; ADHD: F (2, 91) = .32, p = .73, partial η 2 = .007], receptive vocabulary [ F (2, 110) = .19, p = .83, partial η 2 = .003; ADHD: F (2, 91) = .20, p = .82, partial η 2 =.004], expressive vocabulary [ F (2, 110) = 1.84, p = .16, partial η 2 = .032; ADHD: F (2, 91) = .18, p = .84, partial η 2 =.004], syntax [ F (2, 110) = .99, p = .38, partial η 2 = .018; ADHD: F (2, 91) = 1.19, p = .31, partial η 2 =.025] and reading interest [ F (2, 110) =1.28, p = .28, partial η 2 = .023; ADHD: F (2, 91) = .44, p = .65, partial η 2 =.010]. Thus, the results indicated similar demographic baselines across the UP, EP and control groups in the TD and ADHD groups. Furthermore, the results of the skewness and kurtosis of these variables were all within ±2, thus indicating the absence of outliers in this study. Table 1 presents the children’s pretest and posttest scores in the three groups across the TD and ADHD children . RQ1 : Do SBR prompts (UPs and EPs) enhance the language skills and reading interest of TD and ADHD children? We calculated the change scores between posttests and pretests for further comparison. We conducted MANCOVA test using the children’s age and nonverbal intelligence as covariables. We set groups (UP, EP, and control groups) as fixed factors, whilst the change scores of the receptive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary, syntax and reading interest were set as the dependent variables. Table 2 presents the comparison results. The results indicated that change scores were significantly different across the UP, EP and control groups in both the TD ( F range: 44.06–499.32, p s < .001, partial η 2 range: .445–.901) and ADHD ( F range: 9.37–45.90, p s < .001, partial η 2 range: .171–.502) children. Furthermore, post-hoc analysis showed that the TD children in both UP and EP groups had significantly higher score changes across receptive vocabulary (UP vs. control: mean difference = 5.73, p < .001; EP vs. control: mean difference = 6.06, p < .001), expressive vocabulary (UP vs. control: mean difference = 7.54, p < .001; EP vs. control: mean difference = 12.95, p < .001), syntax (UP vs. control: mean difference = 1.84, p < .001; EP vs. control: mean difference = 4.88, p < .001) and reading interest (UP vs. control: mean difference = 7.57, p < .001; EP vs. control: mean difference = 4.85, p < .001) than children in the control group. These findings indicated that using only UPs or EPs significantly enhanced the TD children’s language skills and reading interest. Additionally, post-hoc analysis showed that the ADHD children in both the UP and EP groups had significantly higher score changes across receptive vocabulary (UP vs. control: mean difference = 7.78, p < .001; EP vs. control: mean difference = 7.32, p < .001), expressive vocabulary (UP vs. control: mean difference = 4.50, p < .001; EP vs. control: mean difference = 4.67, p < .001), syntax (UP vs. control: mean difference = 4.07, p < .001; EP vs. control: mean difference = 1.90, p < .001) and reading interest (UP vs. control: mean difference = 7.09, p < .001; EP vs. control: mean difference = 4.32, p < .001) than the ADHD children in the control group. These findings indicated that using only UPs or EPs significantly enhanced the ADHD children’s language skills and reading interest. RQ2 : Do UP and EP have different effects on the language skills and reading interest of TD and ADHD children? Table 2 presents the comparison of results between the UP and EP groups amongst the TD and ADHD children. For the children, post-hoc analysis showed that those in the UP group had similar change scores with the EP group in terms of receptive vocabulary (UP vs. EP: mean difference = .33, p = .65). In comparison, children in the EP group had significantly higher change scores than the UP group in terms of expressive vocabulary (UP vs. EP: mean difference = 5.41, p < .001) and syntax (UP vs. EP: mean difference = 3.05, p < .001). Finally, the UP group had significantly higher change scores than the EP group in terms of reading interest (UP vs. EP: mean difference = 2.72, p < .001). For the ADHD children, post-hoc analysis showed that those in the UP group had similar change scores with the EP group in terms of receptive vocabulary (UP vs. EP: mean difference = .46, p = .71) and expressive vocabulary (UP vs. EP: mean difference = .18, p = .88). In comparison, children in the UP group had significantly higher change scores than those in the EP group in terms of syntax (UP vs. EP: mean difference = 2.16, p < .001) and reading interest (UP vs. EP: mean difference = 2.77, p = .007). Discussion This study investigated the effects of using only UPs or EPs during SBR on the language skills and reading interest development of TD and ADHD children. The current study had two main findings. First, only using either UPs or EPs significantly enhanced the language skills and reading interest development of children, regardless of whether they belonged to the TD or ADHD groups of children. Second, the contribution patterns of UPs and EPs to children’s language skills and reading interest development varied between the TD and ADHD children. Amongst the TD children, those in the UP group outperformed the EP group in terms of reading interest but underperformed in expressive vocabulary and syntax. In comparison, children in either the UP or EP groups had similar performances in receptive vocabulary. For the ADHD children, those in the UP group had higher syntax and reading interest scores than the EP group. Furthermore, the ADHD children had similar receptive and expressive vocabulary scores, regardless of whether they were in the UP or EP groups. Contributions of SBR Prompts to Children’s Language Learning Outcomes The present study’s results were in line with other studies, which reported that the TD children’s language abilities were considerably improved by incorporating prompt techniques into SBR activities (Burgoyne & Cain, 2022 ; Deshmukh et al., 2019 ). Our results also echoed the application of Bloom’s Taxonomy in teaching (Chandio et al., 2016 ), which revealed that question-related tasks encompassing different levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy can improve children’s language learning outcomes. The prompts in SBR could provide clear language meaning cues for children, enabling them to build foundational language skills through imitation and repetition. For example, when parents provide prompts whilst pointing to a picture of a child crying (e.g. ‘What does this picture mean?’), doing so guides children in progressing the semantics of ‘crying’, thus facilitating vocabulary acquisition. Effects of UPs and EPs on TD and ADHD Children For the TD children, the results are partially in line with previous studies, which suggested that UPs significantly enhanced children’s academic engagement (Inggriyani & Hamdani, 2019). In the current study, the UP group performed significantly better than the EP group in terms of reading interest. Furthermore, the UP group had lower cognitive load than the EP group during SBR based on audio recordings. Additionally, the UP group received more positive confirmation feedback (e.g. correct) from parents than the EP group. The higher frequency level of positive confirmation feedback led to the UP group’s higher levels of reading interest. An alternative reason is that UPs might have driven children to pay more attention to the core elements of text content than EPs. In turn, this allowed the children to better grasp the narrative structure and emotional dynamics of characters, thus enhancing their intrinsic motivation for reading. Furthermore, our results showed that the EP group had higher scores in expressive vocabulary and syntax than the UP group children. This is consistent with previous studies, which reported that using evaluation prompts enhanced higher-order information processing (Hoch et al., 2023 ; Wu et al., 2020 ). As EPs prompted higher-order information processing, it required children to engage in deeper thinking and evaluation, such as analysing character motivations, inferring plot developments, or expressing personal opinions. In this process, children must use critical thinking and language organisation skills, guiding them to integrate textual information and construct language expressions (Davies et al., 2020 ). For example, when asked 你认为小鱼为什么会做出这个决定༟这个决定是好是坏༟(‘Why do you think the pretty fish made this decision? Was it good or bad?’), the children needed to find appropriate vocabulary and use proper syntactic structures to express their thoughts. This process naturally promoted the development of their expressive vocabulary and syntactic comprehension ability. Another interesting finding is that the TD children who received either UPs or EPs had similar receptive vocabulary development results. This finding is consistent with previous studies (e.g. O’Fallon et al., 2020), which indicated that children’s receptive vocabulary development is mainly driven by repeated word exposure and contextual support. O’Fallon and colleagues (2020) found that children can learn new words successfully through simple repetition and repetition with definitions, suggesting that the specific type of prompt has minimal impact on receptive vocabulary learning. In the current study, as the reading content was the same between UPs and EPs, the outcomes of new receptive vocabulary learning should be similar between these two groups. For the ADHD children, the current study’s result is consistent with previous studies, which reported that the ADHD children performed poorly in tasks with higher level cognitive loads than those with low levels (DuPaul et al., 2011 ; Kofler et al., 2018 ). UPs simplify task difficulty and provide direct guidance, thus reducing the cognitive load and enabling the ADHD children to better focus on understanding the text. For example, when reading a storybook, a UP like 为什么小鱼认为这顶帽子‘不是我的’༟(Why does the little fish think that the hat ‘is not mine’?) is more straightforward, allowing the ADHD children to follow the train of thought more easily. In turn, this enhances their understanding of the text and heightens their reading interest. Regarding syntax, UPs also simplify the comprehension level of sentence structures for the ADHD children. This simplification allows them to gradually master the relationships between the components of a sentence under the guidance of UPs, which, in turn, improves their syntactic understanding ability. In contrast, EPs require children to engage in higher-order thinking activities, such as critical thinking, moral judgment and hypothetical reasoning. Questions like 如果小鱼向大鱼道歉并归还帽子, 故事的结局可能会有什么不同༟(‘If the little fish had apologised and returned the hat to the big fish, how might the ending be different?’) may be highly difficult for the ADHD children. These questions in the EP group exceeded the children’s current cognitive processing capabilities and may have frustrated them, thereby affecting their performance in syntax and their reading interest. Another interesting finding revealed that UPs and EPs had similar enhancement effects on the ADHD children’s expressive vocabulary. This could be attributed to the fact that the specific type of prompt has a relatively small impact on vocabulary learning. In the present study, although UPs and EPs guide thinking at different depths, there is no essential difference in the basic ways of providing vocabulary learning. Both contain a certain degree of word repetition and explanation. Therefore, there is no significant difference in promoting the expressive vocabulary development of the ADHD children. In addition, due to these children’s deficiency in attention, the 12-week intervention may not be sufficient to identify the statistical differences in expressive vocabulary. Limitations and Implications This study has some limitations that must be addressed in future studies. First, in accordance with executive function theory (Willcutt et al., 2005 ), ADHD subtypes show distinct executive function deficits: the ADHD with predominantly inattentive presentation (ADHD-PI), the ADHD with predominantly hyperactive-impulsive presentation (ADHD-PH) and the ADHD with combined presentation (ADHD-C). These distinct characteristics may led to different levels of reading performances across ADHD-PI, ADHD-PH and ADHD-C. However, the ADHD children involved in the present study were not categorised based on these three subtypes. Past studies have also suggested that ADHD children may exhibit significant differences in cognitive functions, behavioural performance and intervention outcomes across different subtypes and severity (Barley, 1998; Willcutt et al., 2005 ). Therefore, there may be varying contribution patterns of intervention measures to the improvement of executive functions and behaviours in ADHD children under other types or severity levels and unclassified ADHD children. For this reason, future research must explore the long-term effects and applicability of intervention measures for ADHD children with specific subtypes, particularly those with comorbid behavioural or emotional disorders. Second, the SBR prompts in the present study only utilised two levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy (understanding and evaluating), without incorporating prompts from other levels. Therefore, the impacts of the remaining prompts on the language development of the TD and ADHD children remain unclear. To address this gap, future research could include prompts from more levels to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how different levels of Bloom’s Taxonomy influence ADHD children’s language development. Furthermore, this study did not conduct follow-up tests on the language development of the TD and ADHD children after the intervention programme. Thus, it remains uncertain whether the intervention effects diminish or persist over time. For this reason, future studies could incorporate follow-up tests to determine whether the contributions of SBR are maintained after a certain period following the end of the intervention. The current study also sheds light on some practical implications. First, parents can select the appropriate prompting methods to match their children’s distinct characteristics and needs. Well-designed prompts can effectively promote the development of children’s language skills and reading interest during book reading activities, thus demonstrating the importance of designing prompts that align with specific learning objectives. Furthermore, if ADHD children face challenges in syntax and reading interest during SBR activities, more UPs should be applied. By contrast, for TD children, more EPS should be applied to enhance their expressive vocabulary and syntax. Second, the 12-week intervention yielded statistically significant improvements in language development amongst the ADHD children, thereby highlighting the importance of maintaining duration and regularity in conducting SBR. Overall, these findings suggest that the consistent implementation of SBR activities is crucial for optimising language skills acquisition amongst this group. Conclusion This study has demonstrated that the use of prompts during SBR enhanced the language skills and reading interest development of TD and ADHD children. Our results also demonstrated the differential effects of UPs and EPs on the TD and ADHD children’s language development. Overall, these findings expand our knowledge regarding the effects of specific SBR prompts on the TD and ADHD children. Furthermore, the findings contribute to creating more enriched home literacy environments for children and offer a practical example of Bloom’s Taxonomy in teaching while promoting its application in daily learning. Finally, our findings shed light on the appropriate design to be used in SBR programmes by identifying the types of prompts that are effective in promoting TD and ADHD children’s language development. Declarations Author Contribution Renyi Jin contributed Conceptualization; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Software; Supervision; Roles/Writing - original draft; and Writing - review & editing.Yang Dong contributed Conceptualization; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Software; Supervision; Roles/Writing - original draft; and Writing - review & editing.Haoyuan Zheng contributed Conceptualization; Funding, Methodology; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; and Writing - review & editing.Yunyi Xiang contributed Investigation; Methodology; Data curation; Formal analysis; Resources; Software; Roles/Writing - original draft; and Writing - review & editing.Yingying Peng contributed on Conceptualization; Methodology; Investigation, Supervision; and Writing - review & editing. References Adams, N. E. (2015). Bloom’s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 103(3), https://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.010. Adesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., & Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. Review of educational research , 80(2), 207-245. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310368803. Alderson, R. M., Rapport, M. D., & Kofler, M. J. (2007). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and behavioral inhibition: a meta-analytic review of the stop-signal paradigm. Journal of abnormal child psychology , 35, 745-758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9131-6. Anderson, L. W., & Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom's taxonomy of educational objectives: complete edition. Addison Wesley Longman , Inc. Aram, D., & Aviram, S. (2009). Mothers' storybook reading and kindergartners' socioemotional and literacy development. Reading psychology , 30(2), 175-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710802275348. Beazidou, E., Botsoglou, K., & Vlachou, M. (2013). Promoting emotional knowledge: strategies that Greek preschool teachers employ during book reading. Early Child Development and Care , 183(5), 613-626 .https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2012.678490. Blum, I. H., Koskinen, P. S., Bhartiya, P., & Hluboky, S. (2010). Thinking and talking about books: using prompts to stimulate discussion. The reading teacher , 63(6), 495-499. https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.63.6.6. Breaux, R., Dvorsky, M. R., Marsh, N. P., Green, C. D., Cash, A. R., Shroff, D. M., ... & Becker, S. P. (2021). Prospective impact of COVID‐19 on mental health functioning in adolescents with and without ADHD: Protective role of emotion regulation abilities. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry , 62 (9), 1132-1139. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13382 Burgoyne, K., & Cain, K. (2022). The effect of prompts on the shared reading interactions of parents and children with Down syndrome. International Journal of Disability , Development and Education , 69(4), 1327-1341. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2020.1755423 Canfield, C. F., Seery, A., Weisleder, A., Workman, C., Cates, C. B., Roby, E., ... & Mendelsohn, A. (2020). Encouraging parent–child book sharing: Potential additive benefits of literacy promotion in health care and the community. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 50 , 221-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.11.002 Chandio, M. T., Pandhiani, S. M., & Iqbal, R. (2016). Bloom's Taxonomy: Improving Assessment and Teaching-Learning Process. Journal of education and educational development , 3(2), 203-221. https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v3i2.1034 Clemens, L. F., & Kegel, C. A. (2021). Unique contribution of shared book reading on adult-child language interaction. Journal of Child Language , 48 (2), 373-386. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000920000331 Coghill, D., & Seth, S. (2015). Effective management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) through structured re-assessment: the Dundee ADHD Clinical Care Pathway. Child and adolescent psychiatry and mental health , 9, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-015-0083-2 Davies, C., McGillion, M., Rowland, C., & Matthews, D. (2020). Can inferencing be trained in preschoolers using shared book-reading? A randomised controlled trial of parents’ inference-eliciting questions on oral inferencing ability. Journal of Child Language , 47 (3), 655-679. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000919000801 Denton, C. A., Tamm, L., Schatschneider, C., & Epstein, J. N. (2020). The effects of ADHD treatment and reading intervention on the fluency and comprehension of children with ADHD and word reading difficulties: A randomized clinical trial. Scientific Studies of Reading , 24 (1), 72-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1640704 Deshmukh, R. S., Zucker, T. A., Tambyraja, S. R., Pentimonti, J. M., Bowles, R. P., & Justice, L. M. (2019). Teachers’ use of questions during shared book reading: Relations to child responses. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 49, 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.05.006 Doyle, B. G., & Bramwell, W. (2006). Promoting emergent literacy and social–emotional learning through dialogic reading. The Reading Teacher , 59(6), 554-564. https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.59.6.5 Dowdall, N., Melendez‐Torres, G. J., Murray, L., Gardner, F., Hartford, L., & Cooper, P. J. (2020). Shared picture book reading interventions for child language development: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. Child Development , 91 (2), e383-e399. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13225 DuPaul, G. J., Weyandt, L. L., & Janusis, G. M. (2011). ADHD in the classroom: Effective intervention strategies. Theory into practice , 50(1), 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.534935 Dykman, R. A., & Ackerman, P. T. (1991). Attention deficit disorder and specific reading disability: Separate but often overlapping disorders. Journal of learning Disabilities , 24(2), 96-103. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949102400206 Fielding, L. G., & Pearson, P. D. (1994). Reading Comprehension: What Works. Educational leadership , 51(5), 62-68. Forehand, M. (2005). Bloom's taxonomy: Original and revised. Emerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology , 8, 41-44. Furman, L. (2005). What is attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)?. Journal of child neurology , 20(12), 994-1002. Groves, N. B., Wells, E. L., Soto, E. F., Marsh, C. L., Jaisle, E. M., Harvey, T. K., & Kofler, M. J. (2022). Executive functioning and emotion regulation in children with and without ADHD. Research on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology , 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-021-00883-0. Grøver, V., Rydland, V., Gustafsson, J. E., & Snow, C. E. (2020). Shared book reading in preschool supports bilingual children’s second‐language learning: A cluster‐randomized trial. Child development , 91(6), 2192-2210. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13348. Heidlage, J. K., Cunningham, J. E., Kaiser, A. P., Trivette, C. M., Barton, E. E., Frey, J. R., & Roberts, M. Y. (2020). The effects of parent-implemented language interventions on child linguistic outcomes: A meta-analysis. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 50 , 6-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.12.006. Hoch, E., Scheiter, K., & Stalbovs, K. (2023). How to support learning with multimedia instruction: Implementation intentions help even when load is high. British Journal of Psychology , 114 (2), 315-334. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12620. Horst, J. S., Parsons, K. L., & Bryan, N. M. (2011). Get the story straight: Contextual repetition promotes word learning from storybooks. Frontiers in Psychology, 2, 17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00017. Hoyne, C., & Egan, S. M. (2019). Shared book reading in early childhood: A review of influential factors and developmental benefits. An Leanbh Og , 12(1), 77-92. Hung, C. O. Y., & Loh, E. K. Y. (2021). Examining the contribution of cognitive flexibility to metalinguistic skills and reading comprehension. Educational Psychology, 41 (6), 712-729. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1734187. Inggriyani, F., & Hamdani, A. R. (2019, April). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement among elementary school students. In 3rd Asian Education Symposium (AES 2018) (pp. 289-292). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/aes-18.2019.67. Knauer, H. A., Jakiela, P., Ozier, O., Aboud, F., & Fernald, L. C. (2020). Enhancing young children’s language acquisition through parent–child book-sharing: A randomized trial in rural Kenya. Early Childhood Research Quarterly , 50 , 179-190. https://doi.org/10.1596/33117. Kofler, M. J., Sarver, D. E., Harmon, S. L., Moltisanti, A., Aduen, P. A., Soto, E. F., & Ferretti, N. (2018). Working memory and organizational skills problems in ADHD. Journal of child psychology and psychiatry , 59(1), 57-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12773 Kofler, M. J., Rapport, M. D., Bolden, J., Sarver, D. E., & Raiker, J. S. (2010). ADHD and working memory: the impact of central executive deficits and exceeding storage/rehearsal capacity on observed inattentive behavior. Journal of abnormal child psychology , 38, 149-161. Krathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom's taxonomy: An overview. Theory into practice , 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2 Laçin, E. (2023). A Teacher‑Implemented Shared‑Reading Intervention to Promote Early Literacy Skills of Preschoolers Children in Turkey. Reading Psychology , 44(6), 589-603. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2023.2179142 Lenhart, J., Suggate, S. P., & Lenhard, W. (2022). Shared-reading onset and emergent literacy development. Early Education and Development , 33(4), 589-607. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2021.1915651 Luman, M., Tripp, G., & Scheres, A. (2010). Identifying the neurobiology of altered reinforcement sensitivity in ADHD: a review and research agenda. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews , 34(5), 744-754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.11.021 McDougal, E., Gracie, H., Oldridge, J., Stewart, T. M., Booth, J. N., & Rhodes, S. M. (2022). Relationships between cognition and literacy in children with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. British Journal of Developmental Psychology , 40 (1), 130-150. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12395 McGEE, R. O. B., & Share, D. L. (1988). Attention deficit disorder-hyperactivity and academic failure: Which comes first and what should be treated?. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry , 27(3), 318-325. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-198805000-00009 Miller, A. C., Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., Willcutt, E. G., Pennington, B. F., & Olson, R. K. (2013). Reading comprehension in children with ADHD: Cognitive underpinnings of the centrality deficit. Journal of abnormal child psychology , 41, 473-483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9686-8 Mills-Smith, L. (2024). Factors Influencing Caregiver Perceptions of Shared Picture Book Reading Enjoyment with their Young Children. Reading Psychology , 45(5), 519-543. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2024.2339810 Niu, W., Cheng, L., Xu, W., Zhang, Q., & Zhang, X. (2021). Improving resilience of a child with ADHD: A context specific intervention program through dialogic and guided reading. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education , 68(6), 788-805. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2021.1929085 O'Fallon, M., Von Holzen, K., & Newman, R. S. (2020). Preschoolers' word-learning during storybook reading interactions: Comparing repeated and elaborated input. Journal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research , 63(3), 814-826. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_jslhr-19-00189 Parks, K. M., Moreau, C. N., Hannah, K. E., Brainin, L., & Joanisse, M. F. (2022). The task matters: A scoping review on reading comprehension abilities in ADHD. Journal of Attention Disorders , 26 (10), 1304-1324. https://doi.org/10.1177/10870547211068047 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology , 25(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020 Seaman, M. (2011). Bloom’s Taxonomy: Its evolution, revision, and use in the feld of education. In D. J. Flinders & P. B. Uhrmacher (Eds.), Curriculum & Teaching Dialogue (pp. 29–45). Information Age Publishing Inc. Semrud-Clikeman, M., Biederman, J., Sprich-Buckminster, S., Lehman, B. K., Faraone, S. V., & Norman, D. (1992). Comorbidity between ADHD and learning disability: A review and report in a clinically referred sample. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry , 31(3), 439-448. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199205000-00009 Sjöwall, D., Bohlin, G., Rydell, A. M., & Thorell, L. B. (2017). Neuropsychological deficits in preschool as predictors of ADHD symptoms and academic achievement in late adolescence. Child Neuropsychology , 23(1), 111-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2015.1063595 Tong, X., Tong, X., & McBride, C. (2017). Unpacking the relation between morphological awareness and Chinese word reading: Levels of morphological awareness and vocabulary. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 48 , 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.07.003 Towson, J. A., Akemoglu, Y., Watkins, L., & Zeng, S. (2021). Shared interactive book reading interventions for young children with disabilities: A systematic review. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology , 30(6), 2700-2715. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_ajslp-20-00401 van der Wilt, F., Bouwer, R., & van der Veen, C. (2022). Dialogic classroom talk in early childhood education: The effect on language skills and social competence. Learning and Instruction, 77, 101522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101522 Weadman, T., Serry, T., & Snow, P. C. (2023). Oral language and emergent literacy strategies used by Australian early childhood teachers during shared book reading. Early Childhood Education Journal , 51 (8), 1335-1348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01381-8 Willcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E., Nigg, J. T., Faraone, S. V., & Pennington, B. F. (2005). Validity of the executive function theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analytic review. Biological psychiatry , 57(11), 1336-1346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.02.006 Wu, S. P., Van Veen, B., & Rau, M. A. (2020). How drawing prompts can increase cognitive engagement in an active learning engineering course. Journal of Engineering Education , 109 (4), 723-742. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20354 Yorke, A. M., Light, J. C., Gosnell Caron, J., McNaughton, D. B., & Drager, K. D. (2018). The effects of explicit instruction in academic vocabulary during shared book reading on the receptive vocabulary of children with complex communication needs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication , 34(4), 288-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1506823 Zentall, S. S., & Lee, J. (2012). A Reading Motivation Intervention With Differential Outcomes for Students At Risk for Reading Disabilities, ADHD, and Typical Comparisons: “Clever Is and Clever Does”. Learning Disability Quarterly , 35(4), 248-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712438556 Tables Table 1 Participants’ Demographic Information and Language Performances Group Variables Pretest-mean Pretest-SD Posttest-mean Posttest-SD TD UP IQ 11.43 .99 RV 33.27 1.52 40.41 3.34 EV 20.08 .83 27.14 1.95 Syntax .70 .74 2.30 1.73 RI 9.22 1.21 16.73 1.76 EP IQ 11.33 1.28 RV 33.08 1.61 40.54 2.88 EV 20.23 1.06 32.69 1.67 Syntax .92 .77 5.56 .94 RI 8.90 .97 13.69 1.20 CG IQ 11.35 1.21 RV 33.08 1.53 34.49 2.04 EV 20.49 .84 20.00 1.05 Syntax .73 .73 .49 .51 RI 9.27 1.10 9.22 1.16 ADHD UP IQ 12.09 1.57 RV 29.44 3.24 37.22 2.50 EV 15.91 3.35 22.44 3.70 Syntax .72 .63 4.69 2.02 RI 8.13 1.77 14.25 4.11 EP IQ 12.16 1.57 RV 29.58 4.01 36.90 3.09 EV 15.58 3.61 22.29 3.15 Syntax .48 .57 2.29 1.37 RI 7.74 1.81 11.10 3.41 CG IQ 11.87 1.34 RV 29.98 3.77 30.02 3.49 EV 15.39 3.57 17.42 3.12 Syntax .58 .62 .48 .51 RI 8.10 1.83 7.13 1.54 Note . TD = typically developing; UP = understanding prompts, EP = evaluation prompts, CG = control group; IQ = Raven’s nonverbal intelligence test, RV = receptive vocabulary, EV = expressive vocabulary, RI = reading interest. Table 2 Group Comparisons Group Variables mean SD F Partial η 2 Post-Hoc comparison TD UP RV_change 7.14 3.82 44.06 *** .445 UP=EP>CG EV_change 7.05 1.90 499.32 *** .901 EP>UP> CG Syntax_change 1.59 1.85 120.00 *** .686 EP>UP> CG RI_change 7.51 2.45 164.69 *** .750 UP>EP> CG EP RV_change 7.46 2.91 EV_change 12.46 2.06 Syntax_change 4.64 1.22 RI_change 4.79 1.54 CG RV_change 1.41 2.57 EV_change -.49 1.30 Syntax_change -.24 .95 RI_change -.05 1.27 ADHD UP RV_change 7.78 4.58 25.72 *** .361 UP=EP>CG EV_change 6.53 5.17 9.37 *** .171 UP=EP>CG Syntax_change 3.97 2.31 45.90 *** .502 UP>EP>CG RI_change 6.13 4.80 25.06 *** .355 UP>EP>CG EP RV_change 7.32 4.86 EV_change 6.71 4.22 Syntax_change 1.81 1.62 RI_change 3.35 4.25 CG RV_change <.001 4.99 EV_change 2.03 5.04 Syntax_change -.10 .70 RI_change -.97 2.59 Note . *** p < .001, ** p < .01; TD = typically developing; UP = understanding prompts, EP = evaluation prompts, CG = control group; IQ = Raven’s nonverbal intelligence test, RV = receptive vocabulary, EV = expressive vocabulary, RI = reading interest. Additional Declarations No competing interests reported. Supplementary Files AppendixI.docx Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-7332214","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":500159375,"identity":"68cbbf83-0a5a-46bd-b4c0-edc8b83bf57f","order_by":0,"name":"Renyi Jin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hainan University","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Renyi","middleName":"","lastName":"Jin","suffix":""},{"id":500159376,"identity":"5ee11f86-aa13-451e-9804-700e180a532d","order_by":1,"name":"Yang Dong","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hainan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yang","middleName":"","lastName":"Dong","suffix":""},{"id":500159377,"identity":"4705fec4-ab1f-446e-b667-c1e540bb8664","order_by":2,"name":"Haoyuan Zheng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Guangzhou Huashang College","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Haoyuan","middleName":"","lastName":"Zheng","suffix":""},{"id":500159378,"identity":"a23a80b1-b39f-442f-a471-12c2734607c4","order_by":3,"name":"Yunyi Xiang","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Hainan University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yunyi","middleName":"","lastName":"Xiang","suffix":""},{"id":500159379,"identity":"da0176af-c437-4be5-9e42-f8add42a4889","order_by":4,"name":"Yingying Peng","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"Nanchang University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Yingying","middleName":"","lastName":"Peng","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-08-09 07:53:10","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":"","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7332214/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7332214/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":98420981,"identity":"c60063f2-5d03-4814-96f4-dcf0f6cb7380","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-12-17 16:21:38","extension":"pdf","order_by":0,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1006693,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7332214/v1/6158a0dc-689e-471b-8e61-3857b0fee9c6.pdf"},{"id":89354192,"identity":"273257ea-e347-4732-8957-398436fee509","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-08-19 07:03:16","extension":"docx","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"supplement","size":15220,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"AppendixI.docx","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-7332214/v1/1b1aae09c93be21c4afb58c2.docx"}],"financialInterests":"No competing interests reported.","formattedTitle":"Contributions of Understanding and Evaluation Prompts to the Development of Children’s Language Skills and Related Emotions During Shared Book Reading","fulltext":[{"header":"Introduction","content":"\u003cp\u003eShared book reading (SBR) refers to a parent\u0026ndash;child interactive book reading activity in which parents present multiple interactive prompts to their children during a book reading session (Dowdall et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Heidlage et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR28\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Knauer et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR34\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Past studies have suggested that SBR with appropriate prompts significantly enhanced children\u0026rsquo;s early literacy skills (Canfield et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Clemens \u0026amp; Kegel, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR14\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Weadman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR55\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e) and related positive emotional development (Canfield et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR12\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Dowdall et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR20\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). Bloom\u0026rsquo;s Taxonomy (Seaman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e) further categorised such prompts into lower- (e.g. understand) and higher- (e.g. evaluate) order thinking categories. High-order prompts promote children\u0026rsquo;s critical thinking, reasoning abilities and creative expression, allowing them to establish deeper connections and foster a stronger sense of achievement that, in turn, enhances their reading interest (Anderson \u0026amp; Krathwohl, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Seaman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e). In contrast, low-order prompts support the development of foundational reading skills. However, this may limit children\u0026rsquo;s engagement to a superficial level, thus preventing them from delving into the deeper aspects of reading (Seaman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR49\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTo date, the contribution of SBR prompts to children\u0026rsquo;s language abilities and related emotions remains unclear, particularly the impacts of understanding prompts (UPs) and evaluating prompts (EPs) on the development of children\u0026rsquo;s language abilities and related emotions. Compared with typically developing (TD) children, those with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) face more challenges in SBR due to impairments in their executive function (Denton et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; McDougal et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR41\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Parks et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e), emotional regulation (Breaux et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR10\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Groves et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and their reading speed and accuracy (Denton et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR17\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e; Groves et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR26\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Parks et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR47\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e). These impairments not only hinder their ability to process and retain text information but also negatively affect their language skills. This, in turn, limits their capacity to connect with the emotional content of stories, further affecting their emotional development. However, whether the contribution of SBR prompts have varying impact patterns on the language abilities and related emotions of ADHD and TD children remains unclear.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eTherefore, the current study expands the current literature by further categorising SBR prompts into lower- and higher-order thinking prompts. This facilitates the investigation of the contributions of UP and EP to the development of the language skills and related emotions of TD and ADHD children.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eLiterature Review\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec3\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003ePrompts and Children\u0026rsquo;s Language Learning\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eIn the context of SBR, prompts are designed to stimulate cognitive engagement and expressive output, often taking the form of open- or closed-ended questions (Blum et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR9\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e; Fielding \u0026amp; Pearson, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR23\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1994\u003c/span\u003e). These prompts have been shown to significantly enhance children\u0026rsquo;s language skills and emotional development (Aram \u0026amp; Aviram, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR6\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2009\u003c/span\u003e; Beazidou et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR7\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e; Doyle \u0026amp; Bramwell, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR19\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2006\u003c/span\u003e). For example, Yang et al. (2024) demonstrated that discussion prompts in bilingual e-books improved English comprehension amongst Chinese children. Similarly, Adesope et al. (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR3\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2010\u003c/span\u003e) concluded that bilingual children developed greater cognitive flexibility through such prompts. Discussion prompts have also been proven effective in enhancing self-regulation and adaptability in multilingual settings (Yang et al., 2024; Niu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). To further optimise the effectiveness of these prompts, Bloom\u0026rsquo;s Taxonomy provides a valuable framework for categorising cognitive processes and, consequently, designing prompts targeting specific levels of thinking.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eBloom\u0026rsquo;s Taxonomy also serves as an evaluative tool for assessing cognitive competencies and a scaffold for designing educational activities deemed intellectually rigorous (Anderson \u0026amp; Krathwohl, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Forehand, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR24\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Empirical evidence has demonstrated that Bloom\u0026rsquo;s Taxonomy is particularly effective in guiding the design of various educational interventions (Adams, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR1\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2015\u003c/span\u003e; Krathwohl, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). UPs and EPs are two typical prompts representing higher- and lower-orders of thinking within Bloom\u0026rsquo;s Taxonomy. On the one hand, UPs refer to the ability to interpret, summarise and explain information, enabling individuals to make sense of texts and connect them to their existing knowledge (Anderson \u0026amp; Krathwohl, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR5\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2001\u003c/span\u003e; Krathwohl, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). On the other hand, EPs refer to the processes of making judgments, justifying opinions and engaging in critical thinking and self-reflection, which build upon the ability to first understand and then interpret information (Anderson \u0026amp; Krathwohl, 2001; Krathwohl, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR37\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2002\u003c/span\u003e). However, the contributions of UPs and EPs to children\u0026rsquo;s language skills and related emotional development remain unclear.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSBR and Language Development\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eSBR is a multifaceted educational tool that promotes the development of children\u0026rsquo;s language and literacy skills. This type of activity promotes children\u0026rsquo;s language development by immersing them in a rich linguistic environment through multiple rounds of interactive prompts\u0026ndash;answer sessions. Current studies have demonstrated that SBR significantly enhances children\u0026rsquo;s receptive and expressive vocabularies (Lenhart et al., 2021; Towson et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR53\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e; Yorke et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR58\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e), syntactic skills (Grover et al., 2024; Lacin, 2024; Van der Wilt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR54\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e) and reading interest development (Hoyne \u0026amp; Egan, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR31\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e; McNally et al., 2024; Mills-Smith, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR44\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2024\u003c/span\u003e). However, the effects of UPs and EPs on the development of children\u0026rsquo;s language abilities and reading interest during SBR activities remain unclear.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eSBR and ADHD Children\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eADHD children are characterised by persistent patterns of inattention, hyperactivity and impulsivity that interfere with their functioning or development, leading to a range of various emotional, psychological and learning problems (Furman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR25\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e; Miller et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR43\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2013\u003c/span\u003e). ADHD children often struggle with certain tasks, such as extracting information and understanding story structures and causal relationships, which can hinder the development of their language skills and reading interest (Lee \u0026amp; Zentall, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR59\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2012\u003c/span\u003e; Niu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR45\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e). Miller and colleagues conducted a study involving 27 ADHD children and 27 TD children and found that the former exhibit difficulties in extracting information and comprehending narrative structures and causal relations, particularly demonstrating a deficit in recalling central information. Compared to TD children, about 25\u0026ndash;40% of ADHD children exhibit some form of reading disorder (Dykman \u0026amp; Ackerman, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR22\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1991\u003c/span\u003e; McGee \u0026amp; Share, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR42\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1988\u003c/span\u003e; Semrud-Clikeman et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR50\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e1992\u003c/span\u003e).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eThe Current Study\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eTo address the aforementioned research gaps, the current study aimed to address two research questions (RQs):\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eDo SBR prompts (UPs and EPs) enhance the language skills and reading interest of TD and ADHD children?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is hypothesised that children who received either UPs or EPs achieved significantly positive language skills and reading interest development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cp\u003eDo UP and EP have different effects on the language skills and reading interest of TD and ADHD children?\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eIt is hypothesised that ADHD children who received UPs had better language skills and reading interest development than those who received EPs. Furthermore, it is hypothesised that TD children who received EPs had better language skills and reading interest development than those who received UPs.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Methods","content":"\u003cdiv id=\"Sec8\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eParticipants\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eUsing an online advertisement, the current study allocated an online questionnaire to kindergarteners\u0026rsquo; guardians and asked them to (1) indicate whether they would like their children to attend the SBR program, (2) voluntarily report potential ADHD-related behavioural concerns in their children and (3) present basic demographic information. These guardians received a small financial reward for their participations. Afterwards, we invited a licensed psychologist to conduct structured clinical assessments using the criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM \u0026minus;\u0026thinsp;5) to confirm the children\u0026rsquo;s ADHD diagnosis. The ADHD diagnostic procedure included a clinically developed semistructured interview that assessed ADHD symptoms and additional criteria for ADHD based on the DSM, including age of onset, functional impairments and ruling out of other possible causes, such as mood, anxiety and adjustment, for ADHD symptomatology.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFinally, a total of 209 third-grade kindergarten students and their parents were recruited. The participants and their families\u0026mdash;who were all living in a southern city in China\u0026mdash;were ranked in the low- to middle-income groups. Amongst these children, 96 were diagnosed with ADHD, whilst 113 children were diagnosed as TD without any behavioural disorders (e.g. eating problems). All the students were clustered by gender and randomly assigned into three groups: UP, EP and control. During the intervention, 2 ADHD children dropped out from the study due to medical problems, leaving 207 families to complete the entire intervention and participate in the posttest. The UP group included 37 TD children (18 boys, 19 girls, Mean age\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.37, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.29) and 32 ADHD children (25 boys, 7 girls, Mean age\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.41, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.28). The EP group included 39 TD children (20 boys, 19 girls, Mean age\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.51, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.29) and 31 ADHD children (26 boys, 5 girls, Mean age\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.48, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.28). Finally, the control group included 37 TD children (20 boys, 17 girls, Mean age\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.45, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.33) and 31 ADHD children (24 boys, 7 girls, Mean age\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;5.47, SD\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.30).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\n\u003ch3\u003eMeasures\u003c/h3\u003e\n\u003cdiv id=\"Sec10\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eReceptive Vocabulary\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study used the Tong\u0026rsquo;s (2017) Chinese Receptive Vocabulary Test to examine the students\u0026rsquo; Chinese receptive vocabulary. The test contained 60 items presented with an increasing level of difficulty. The children were asked to orally select one picture from four potential choices to match the semantic meaning of a one- or two-character word uttered twice by the experimenter. Each correct answer was given 1 point. This test had a maximum score of 60, and a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α of .91.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec11\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eExpressive Vocabulary\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe Chinese version of Martin and Brownell\u0026rsquo;s (2011) Expressive Vocabulary Test was used to examine the students\u0026rsquo; Chinese expressive vocabulary. The test had 60 items in which the children were required to produce a word that best matched the meaning of the presented picture. Each correct score was given 1 point. The maximum score was 60, and the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α was .89.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec12\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eSyntax\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study used the Hung and Loh\u0026rsquo;s (\u003cspan citationid=\"CR32\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2021\u003c/span\u003e) word order task to examine the students\u0026rsquo; basic awareness of Chinese sentence structure (e.g. subject-verb-object). Here, the children were required to identify the correct sequences for three- to six-sentence elements [Example item: Question Presentation: 1. 是 (am/is/are), 2. 学生 (student), 3. 小红 (Hong), 4. 好 (good) and 5. 一名 (a/one); Correct answer: 小红是一名好学生 (\u0026lsquo;Hong is a good student.\u0026rsquo;)]. The word order task contained 10 items, and each correct answer was given 1 point. The maximum score was 10, and the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α was .87.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec13\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eReading Interest Questionnaire\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study used Zhang and Xin\u0026rsquo;s Chinese Reading Interest Scale to measure the children\u0026rsquo;s reading interest. This scale contained six 5-point items. The instructor read aloud each item twice, and the children were required to select one mark [(^0^)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;highly agree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;4, (◠‿◠)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;agree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;3, (\u0026ocirc;ู\u0026ocirc;)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;disagree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;2, (╥๏╥)\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;highly disagree\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;1] on a 4-point scale that best matched their current opinion (example item: \u0026lsquo;I enjoy reading books\u0026rsquo;). Higher scores represented higher levels of children\u0026rsquo;s intrinsic interest in book reading activities. The maximum score was 24, and the Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α was .85.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec14\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eNonverbal Intelligence\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study used the full version of Raven\u0026rsquo;s Progressive Matrices (Raven et al., 1996) to examine the students\u0026rsquo; nonverbal intelligence. This test featured 60 items divided into five sections containing12 items each. The children were asked to identify one answer from the given 6\u0026ndash;8 options to best complete the given picture. Each correct answer was given a score of 1, and a child can receive a maximum score of 60. The test in the current study had a Cronbach\u0026rsquo;s α of 0.87.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec15\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eProcedure\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe current study obtained ethical approval from the authors\u0026rsquo; IRB committee. Parents\u0026rsquo; consent and children\u0026rsquo;s oral assent were also collected. Before the SBR intervention, all the participating parents were given a questionnaire to obtain demographic information about their children. We required that the educators (i.e. parents) should be the same one to implement SBR to their children throughout the 12-week intervention. All the students were administered the pretests inside a silent classroom in their school. The pretests included Raven\u0026rsquo;s test, receptive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary, syntax and reading interest. During the 12-week intervention, all the parents in the three groups (EP, UP and control) read books to their children twice a week, as required. To examine the contributions of UPs and EPs to children\u0026rsquo;s language development, we applied prompts with simplified direction feedback (e.g. correct and wrong) to children during SBR.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e The parents were also required to audio record the book reading activities and submit the recordings to the research team for fidelity check, including the book titles and the dates during which the SBR activities were implemented. All audio recordings must be uploaded to a designated Baidu Drive folder before each Sunday. The research team transcribed the audio recordings to check the fidelity of book reading. For example, we quantified (1) the length of each parent\u0026ndash;child book reading activity, (2) the prompts used in each book reading activity and (3) the frequency of other unexpected behaviours (e.g. further explanation on the conversation). To ensure that all parent\u0026ndash;children book reading sessions went smoothly, the research team regularly contacted the parents via phone calls twice a week during the 12-week intervention. After 12 weeks of the parent\u0026ndash;child SBR, posttests on the same language measures employed in the pretests were administered to all the children.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec16\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eReading Materials\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe current study selected 12 narrative storybooks that were successfully used in previous studies. As these books contained numerous pictures and did not heavily rely on written text, they were appropriate materials to enhance the language development of the TD and ADHD children during SBR. In accordance with the research purpose, the research team further revised the content by adding cues and requirements for prompts (UPs and EPs) and then allocating them to the families in the UP, EP and control groups. Hint questions were only given to the UP and EP groups. The selected 12 storybooks had similar levels of reading difficulty in terms of sentence length and syntax. These storybooks also contained the top 500 most frequently used Chinese characters commonly found in books.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec17\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eUnderstanding Prompts (UP) Group\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e Before the formal SBR intervention, all the parents were given a 90-minute workshop to train them in the proper use of UP techniques. The research team followed Akemoglu and Tomeny\u0026rsquo;s (2021) suggestion to implement workshops, including providing definitions and examples of UPs to parents, elaborating on each key point of UPs during SBR [e.g. 小鱼为什么认为这顶帽子\u0026rsquo;不是我的\u0026rsquo;༟(Why does the little fish think that the hat \u0026lsquo;is not mine\u0026rsquo;?) ] and playing video recordings to show how researchers used UPs to children during SBR. Afterwards, the parents played the role of educator whilst the trained research assistants (RAs) played the role of children. The research team provided one practice item to parents to implement UPs to the RAs. The research team members checked the parents\u0026rsquo; prompt and feedback performance to assess whether they were able to master the UP techniques during the SBR simulation. The members provided a second round of training for parents who have not yet mastered the UP technique.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eEach family in the UP group received 12 narrative storybooks in total, with only one book given every Monday morning of each week. We gave the parents printed copies of UP hints, a guideline with UP techniques and sample prompts that can be used with these 12 books. They read with their child using UPs twice a week, 20 minutes each time, for 12 weeks. In particular, the parents were required to ask their children relevant questions about the storybook content using UPs and support the children as they attempted to answer the questions.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec18\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEvaluation Prompts (EP) Group\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003e The research team provided this group a 90-minute workshop with the same training agenda as the UP group, with one major difference: we used EP technique elaboration content instead. All parents in the EP group received training on how to stimulate their children\u0026rsquo;s critical thinking (e.g. moral judgment, hypothetical reasoning and value reflection) to encourage them to articulate their opinions and justify their reasoning.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003e Before the intervention, all parents in the EP group were provided with the same set of storybooks and guideline as the parents in the UP group. All the parents in the EP group also received just one book every Monday morning of each week. However, we modified the 12 storybooks to contain EP hints and gave them guidelines for using EP techniques rather than for UPs. One sample item of EP during SBR is as follows: 如果小鱼向大鱼道歉并归还帽子, 故事的结局可能会有什么不同༟(\u0026lsquo;If the little fish had apologised and returned the hat to the big fish, how might the ending be different?\u0026rsquo;). The parents in the EP group read with their child using EPs twice a week, 20 minutes each time, for 12 weeks.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec19\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eControl Group\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eParents in the control group implemented typical book reading activities to their children as they normally would, without receiving systematic SBR technique training. The parents in this group received the same books each week but without the prompt question hints and the technique guidelines. Each family received only one book every Monday morning of each week throughout the 12-week period. They were asked to read each book as they normally would, twice a week, 20 minutes each time. The parents in the control group also needed to submit audio recordings to the research team at assigned time slots, similar to the parents in the UP and EP groups. After 12 weeks of SBR, the research team provided another workshop for the control group to train these parents in using prompt techniques in their SBR activities.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec20\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eData Analysis\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe current study used the chi-square and ANOVA tests to examine the baselines (age, gender composition and language task performances prior to the intervention) of the UP, EP and control groups amongst the TD and ADHD children. The current study used MANCOVA to compare the intervention effects on the children\u0026rsquo;s language development. The current study used partial eta-squared (\u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e) as effect size, with partial values of \u003cem\u003eη\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026thinsp;=\u0026thinsp;.01, .06 and .14 indicating small, medium and large effect sizes, respectively, following the rule of thumb for effect sizes (Cohen, 1988).\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Results","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003eBaseline Comparison\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThe results of the ANOVA and chi-square tests showed that the three groups did not significantly differ at pretest on the following variables: age [TD: \u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2, 110) = 2.47, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .09, partial \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= .043; ADHD:\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;F\u003c/em\u003e (2, 91) = .51, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .60, partial \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e=.011], gender composition [TD: \u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e (2, 110) = .22, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .90, partial \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e\u0026lt; 0.002; ADHD: \u003cem\u003e\u0026chi;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e (2, 91) = .48, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .79, partial \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= 0.005], nonverbal intelligence [\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2, 110) = .08, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .93, partial \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= .001; ADHD:\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;F\u003c/em\u003e (2, 91) = .32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .73, partial \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= .007], receptive vocabulary [\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2, 110) = .19, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .83, partial \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= .003; ADHD:\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;F\u003c/em\u003e (2, 91) = .20, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .82, partial \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e=.004], expressive vocabulary [\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2, 110) = 1.84, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .16, partial \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e= .032; ADHD:\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;F\u003c/em\u003e (2, 91) = .18, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .84, partial \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=.004], syntax [\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2, 110) = .99, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .38, partial \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u0026nbsp;\u003c/sup\u003e= .018; ADHD:\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;F\u003c/em\u003e (2, 91) = 1.19, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .31, partial \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=.025] and reading interest [\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e (2, 110) =1.28, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .28, partial \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e= .023; ADHD:\u003cem\u003e\u0026nbsp;F\u003c/em\u003e (2, 91) = .44, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .65, partial \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e=.010]. Thus, the results indicated similar demographic baselines across the UP, EP and control groups in the TD and ADHD groups. Furthermore, the results of the skewness and kurtosis of these variables were all within \u0026plusmn;2, thus indicating the absence of outliers in this study. \u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e presents the children\u0026rsquo;s pretest and posttest scores in the three groups across the TD and ADHD children .\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003e: Do SBR prompts (UPs and EPs) enhance the language skills and reading interest of TD and ADHD children?\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWe calculated the change scores between posttests and pretests for further comparison. We conducted MANCOVA test using the children\u0026rsquo;s age and nonverbal intelligence as covariables. We set groups (UP, EP, and control groups) as fixed factors, whilst the change scores of the receptive vocabulary, expressive vocabulary, syntax and reading interest were set as the dependent variables.\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;Table 2\u003c/strong\u003e presents the comparison results. The results indicated that change scores were significantly different across the UP, EP and control groups in both the TD (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e range: 44.06\u0026ndash;499.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003es \u0026lt; .001, partial \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e range: .445\u0026ndash;.901) and ADHD (\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e range: 9.37\u0026ndash;45.90, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003es \u0026lt; .001, partial \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e range: .171\u0026ndash;.502) children.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, post-hoc analysis showed that the TD children in both UP and EP groups had significantly higher score changes across receptive vocabulary (UP vs. control: mean difference = 5.73, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001; EP vs. control: mean difference = 6.06, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), expressive vocabulary (UP vs. control: mean difference = 7.54, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001; EP vs. control: mean difference = 12.95, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), syntax (UP vs. control: mean difference = 1.84, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001; EP vs. control: mean difference = 4.88, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001) and reading interest (UP vs. control: mean difference = 7.57, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001; EP vs. control: mean difference = 4.85, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001) than children in the control group. These findings indicated that using only UPs or EPs significantly enhanced the TD children\u0026rsquo;s language skills and reading interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp; \u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;Additionally, post-hoc analysis showed that the ADHD children in both the UP and EP groups had significantly higher score changes across receptive vocabulary (UP vs. control: mean difference = 7.78, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001; EP vs. control: mean difference = 7.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), expressive vocabulary (UP vs. control: mean difference = 4.50, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001; EP vs. control: mean difference = 4.67, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001), syntax (UP vs. control: mean difference = 4.07, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001; EP vs. control: mean difference = 1.90, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001) and reading interest (UP vs. control: mean difference = 7.09, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001; EP vs. control: mean difference = 4.32, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001) than the ADHD children in the control group. These findings indicated that using only UPs or EPs significantly enhanced the ADHD children\u0026rsquo;s language skills and reading interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eRQ2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cstrong\u003e\u003cem\u003e:\u0026nbsp;\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/strong\u003e\u003cem\u003eDo UP and EP have different effects on the language skills and reading interest of TD and ADHD children?\u003cstrong\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u0026nbsp;\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e presents the comparison of results between the UP and EP groups amongst the TD and ADHD children. For the children, post-hoc analysis showed that those in the UP group had similar change scores with the EP group in terms of receptive vocabulary (UP vs. EP: mean difference = .33, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .65). In comparison, children in the EP group had significantly higher change scores than the UP group in terms of expressive vocabulary (UP vs. EP: mean difference = 5.41, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001) and syntax (UP vs. EP: mean difference = 3.05, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001). Finally, the UP group had significantly higher change scores than the EP group in terms of reading interest (UP vs. EP: mean difference = 2.72, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001).\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eFor the ADHD children, post-hoc analysis showed that those in the UP group had similar change scores with the EP group in terms of receptive vocabulary (UP vs. EP: mean difference = .46, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .71) and expressive vocabulary (UP vs. EP: mean difference = .18, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .88). In comparison, children in the UP group had significantly higher change scores than those in the EP group in terms of syntax (UP vs. EP: mean difference = 2.16, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001) and reading interest (UP vs. EP: mean difference = 2.77, \u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e = .007).\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Discussion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study investigated the effects of using only UPs or EPs during SBR on the language skills and reading interest development of TD and ADHD children. The current study had two main findings. First, only using either UPs or EPs significantly enhanced the language skills and reading interest development of children, regardless of whether they belonged to the TD or ADHD groups of children. Second, the contribution patterns of UPs and EPs to children\u0026rsquo;s language skills and reading interest development varied between the TD and ADHD children. Amongst the TD children, those in the UP group outperformed the EP group in terms of reading interest but underperformed in expressive vocabulary and syntax. In comparison, children in either the UP or EP groups had similar performances in receptive vocabulary. For the ADHD children, those in the UP group had higher syntax and reading interest scores than the EP group. Furthermore, the ADHD children had similar receptive and expressive vocabulary scores, regardless of whether they were in the UP or EP groups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec24\" class=\"Section2\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eContributions of SBR Prompts to Children\u0026rsquo;s Language Learning Outcomes\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe present study\u0026rsquo;s results were in line with other studies, which reported that the TD children\u0026rsquo;s language abilities were considerably improved by incorporating prompt techniques into SBR activities (Burgoyne \u0026amp; Cain, \u003cspan citationid=\"CR11\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2022\u003c/span\u003e; Deshmukh et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR18\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2019\u003c/span\u003e). Our results also echoed the application of Bloom\u0026rsquo;s Taxonomy in teaching (Chandio et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR13\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2016\u003c/span\u003e), which revealed that question-related tasks encompassing different levels of Bloom\u0026rsquo;s Taxonomy can improve children\u0026rsquo;s language learning outcomes. The prompts in SBR could provide clear language meaning cues for children, enabling them to build foundational language skills through imitation and repetition. For example, when parents provide prompts whilst pointing to a picture of a child crying (e.g. \u0026lsquo;What does this picture mean?\u0026rsquo;), doing so guides children in progressing the semantics of \u0026lsquo;crying\u0026rsquo;, thus facilitating vocabulary acquisition.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec25\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eEffects of UPs and EPs on TD and ADHD Children\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the TD children, the results are partially in line with previous studies, which suggested that UPs significantly enhanced children\u0026rsquo;s academic engagement (Inggriyani \u0026amp; Hamdani, 2019). In the current study, the UP group performed significantly better than the EP group in terms of reading interest. Furthermore, the UP group had lower cognitive load than the EP group during SBR based on audio recordings. Additionally, the UP group received more positive confirmation feedback (e.g. correct) from parents than the EP group. The higher frequency level of positive confirmation feedback led to the UP group\u0026rsquo;s higher levels of reading interest. An alternative reason is that UPs might have driven children to pay more attention to the core elements of text content than EPs. In turn, this allowed the children to better grasp the narrative structure and emotional dynamics of characters, thus enhancing their intrinsic motivation for reading.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, our results showed that the EP group had higher scores in expressive vocabulary and syntax than the UP group children. This is consistent with previous studies, which reported that using evaluation prompts enhanced higher-order information processing (Hoch et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR29\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2023\u003c/span\u003e; Wu et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR57\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). As EPs prompted higher-order information processing, it required children to engage in deeper thinking and evaluation, such as analysing character motivations, inferring plot developments, or expressing personal opinions. In this process, children must use critical thinking and language organisation skills, guiding them to integrate textual information and construct language expressions (Davies et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR16\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2020\u003c/span\u003e). For example, when asked 你认为小鱼为什么会做出这个决定༟这个决定是好是坏༟(\u0026lsquo;Why do you think the pretty fish made this decision? Was it good or bad?\u0026rsquo;), the children needed to find appropriate vocabulary and use proper syntactic structures to express their thoughts. This process naturally promoted the development of their expressive vocabulary and syntactic comprehension ability.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother interesting finding is that the TD children who received either UPs or EPs had similar receptive vocabulary development results. This finding is consistent with previous studies (e.g. O\u0026rsquo;Fallon et al., 2020), which indicated that children\u0026rsquo;s receptive vocabulary development is mainly driven by repeated word exposure and contextual support. O\u0026rsquo;Fallon and colleagues (2020) found that children can learn new words successfully through simple repetition and repetition with definitions, suggesting that the specific type of prompt has minimal impact on receptive vocabulary learning. In the current study, as the reading content was the same between UPs and EPs, the outcomes of new receptive vocabulary learning should be similar between these two groups.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFor the ADHD children, the current study\u0026rsquo;s result is consistent with previous studies, which reported that the ADHD children performed poorly in tasks with higher level cognitive loads than those with low levels (DuPaul et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR21\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2011\u003c/span\u003e; Kofler et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR35\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2018\u003c/span\u003e). UPs simplify task difficulty and provide direct guidance, thus reducing the cognitive load and enabling the ADHD children to better focus on understanding the text. For example, when reading a storybook, a UP like 为什么小鱼认为这顶帽子\u0026lsquo;不是我的\u0026rsquo;༟(Why does the little fish think that the hat \u0026lsquo;is not mine\u0026rsquo;?) is more straightforward, allowing the ADHD children to follow the train of thought more easily. In turn, this enhances their understanding of the text and heightens their reading interest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eRegarding syntax, UPs also simplify the comprehension level of sentence structures for the ADHD children. This simplification allows them to gradually master the relationships between the components of a sentence under the guidance of UPs, which, in turn, improves their syntactic understanding ability. In contrast, EPs require children to engage in higher-order thinking activities, such as critical thinking, moral judgment and hypothetical reasoning. Questions like 如果小鱼向大鱼道歉并归还帽子, 故事的结局可能会有什么不同༟(\u0026lsquo;If the little fish had apologised and returned the hat to the big fish, how might the ending be different?\u0026rsquo;) may be highly difficult for the ADHD children. These questions in the EP group exceeded the children\u0026rsquo;s current cognitive processing capabilities and may have frustrated them, thereby affecting their performance in syntax and their reading interest.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eAnother interesting finding revealed that UPs and EPs had similar enhancement effects on the ADHD children\u0026rsquo;s expressive vocabulary. This could be attributed to the fact that the specific type of prompt has a relatively small impact on vocabulary learning. In the present study, although UPs and EPs guide thinking at different depths, there is no essential difference in the basic ways of providing vocabulary learning. Both contain a certain degree of word repetition and explanation. Therefore, there is no significant difference in promoting the expressive vocabulary development of the ADHD children. In addition, due to these children\u0026rsquo;s deficiency in attention, the 12-week intervention may not be sufficient to identify the statistical differences in expressive vocabulary.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003cdiv id=\"Sec26\" class=\"Section3\"\u003e\u003ch2\u003eLimitations and Implications\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eThis study has some limitations that must be addressed in future studies. First, in accordance with executive function theory (Willcutt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e), ADHD subtypes show distinct executive function deficits: the ADHD with predominantly inattentive presentation (ADHD-PI), the ADHD with predominantly hyperactive-impulsive presentation (ADHD-PH) and the ADHD with combined presentation (ADHD-C). These distinct characteristics may led to different levels of reading performances across ADHD-PI, ADHD-PH and ADHD-C. However, the ADHD children involved in the present study were not categorised based on these three subtypes. Past studies have also suggested that ADHD children may exhibit significant differences in cognitive functions, behavioural performance and intervention outcomes across different subtypes and severity (Barley, 1998; Willcutt et al., \u003cspan citationid=\"CR56\" class=\"CitationRef\"\u003e2005\u003c/span\u003e). Therefore, there may be varying contribution patterns of intervention measures to the improvement of executive functions and behaviours in ADHD children under other types or severity levels and unclassified ADHD children. For this reason, future research must explore the long-term effects and applicability of intervention measures for ADHD children with specific subtypes, particularly those with comorbid behavioural or emotional disorders.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eSecond, the SBR prompts in the present study only utilised two levels of Bloom\u0026rsquo;s Taxonomy (understanding and evaluating), without incorporating prompts from other levels. Therefore, the impacts of the remaining prompts on the language development of the TD and ADHD children remain unclear. To address this gap, future research could include prompts from more levels to provide a more comprehensive understanding of how different levels of Bloom\u0026rsquo;s Taxonomy influence ADHD children\u0026rsquo;s language development.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eFurthermore, this study did not conduct follow-up tests on the language development of the TD and ADHD children after the intervention programme. Thus, it remains uncertain whether the intervention effects diminish or persist over time. For this reason, future studies could incorporate follow-up tests to determine whether the contributions of SBR are maintained after a certain period following the end of the intervention.\u003c/p\u003e\u003cp\u003eThe current study also sheds light on some practical implications. First, parents can select the appropriate prompting methods to match their children\u0026rsquo;s distinct characteristics and needs. Well-designed prompts can effectively promote the development of children\u0026rsquo;s language skills and reading interest during book reading activities, thus demonstrating the importance of designing prompts that align with specific learning objectives. Furthermore, if ADHD children face challenges in syntax and reading interest during SBR activities, more UPs should be applied. By contrast, for TD children, more EPS should be applied to enhance their expressive vocabulary and syntax. Second, the 12-week intervention yielded statistically significant improvements in language development amongst the ADHD children, thereby highlighting the importance of maintaining duration and regularity in conducting SBR. Overall, these findings suggest that the consistent implementation of SBR activities is crucial for optimising language skills acquisition amongst this group.\u003c/p\u003e\u003c/div\u003e\u003c/div\u003e"},{"header":"Conclusion","content":"\u003cp\u003eThis study has demonstrated that the use of prompts during SBR enhanced the language skills and reading interest development of TD and ADHD children. Our results also demonstrated the differential effects of UPs and EPs on the TD and ADHD children\u0026rsquo;s language development. Overall, these findings expand our knowledge regarding the effects of specific SBR prompts on the TD and ADHD children. Furthermore, the findings contribute to creating more enriched home literacy environments for children and offer a practical example of Bloom\u0026rsquo;s Taxonomy in teaching while promoting its application in daily learning. Finally, our findings shed light on the appropriate design to be used in SBR programmes by identifying the types of prompts that are effective in promoting TD and ADHD children\u0026rsquo;s language development.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"Declarations","content":"\u003ch2\u003eAuthor Contribution\u003c/h2\u003e\u003cp\u003eRenyi Jin contributed Conceptualization; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Software; Supervision; Roles/Writing - original draft; and Writing - review \u0026amp; editing.Yang Dong contributed Conceptualization; Methodology; Project administration; Resources; Software; Supervision; Roles/Writing - original draft; and Writing - review \u0026amp; editing.Haoyuan Zheng contributed Conceptualization; Funding, Methodology; Supervision; Validation; Visualization; and Writing - review \u0026amp; editing.Yunyi Xiang contributed Investigation; Methodology; Data curation; Formal analysis; Resources; Software; Roles/Writing - original draft; and Writing - review \u0026amp; editing.Yingying Peng contributed on Conceptualization; Methodology; Investigation, Supervision; and Writing - review \u0026amp; editing.\u003c/p\u003e"},{"header":"References","content":"\u003col\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdams, N. E. (2015). Bloom\u0026rsquo;s taxonomy of cognitive learning objectives. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the Medical Library Association\u003c/em\u003e: JMLA, 103(3),\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003ehttps://doi.org/10.3163/1536-5050.103.3.010.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAdesope, O. O., Lavin, T., Thompson, T., \u0026amp; Ungerleider, C. (2010). A systematic review and meta-analysis of the cognitive correlates of bilingualism. \u003cem\u003eReview of educational research\u003c/em\u003e, 80(2), 207-245. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654310368803.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAlderson, R. M., Rapport, M. D., \u0026amp; Kofler, M. J. (2007). Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder and behavioral inhibition: a meta-analytic review of the stop-signal paradigm. \u003cem\u003eJournal of abnormal child psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 35, 745-758. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-007-9131-6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAnderson, L. W., \u0026amp; Krathwohl, D. R. (2001). A taxonomy for learning, teaching, and assessing: A revision of Bloom\u0026apos;s taxonomy of educational objectives: complete edition. \u003cem\u003eAddison Wesley Longman\u003c/em\u003e, Inc.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eAram, D., \u0026amp; Aviram, S. (2009). Mothers\u0026apos; storybook reading and kindergartners\u0026apos; socioemotional and literacy development. \u003cem\u003eReading psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 30(2), 175-194. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702710802275348.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBeazidou, E., Botsoglou, K., \u0026amp; Vlachou, M. (2013). Promoting emotional knowledge: strategies that Greek preschool teachers employ during book reading. \u003cem\u003eEarly Child Development and Care\u003c/em\u003e, 183(5), 613-626\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003e.https://doi.org/10.1080/03004430.2012.678490.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBlum, I. H., Koskinen, P. S., Bhartiya, P., \u0026amp; Hluboky, S. (2010). Thinking and talking about books: using prompts to stimulate discussion. \u003cem\u003eThe reading teacher\u003c/em\u003e, 63(6), 495-499. https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.63.6.6.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBreaux, R., Dvorsky, M. R., Marsh, N. P., Green, C. D., Cash, A. R., Shroff, D. M., ... \u0026amp; Becker, S. P. (2021). Prospective impact of COVID‐19 on mental health functioning in adolescents with and without ADHD: Protective role of emotion regulation abilities. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e62\u003c/em\u003e(9), 1132-1139. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.13382\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eBurgoyne, K., \u0026amp; Cain, K. (2022). The effect of prompts on the shared reading interactions of parents and children with Down syndrome. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Disability\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003eDevelopment and Education\u003c/em\u003e, 69(4), 1327-1341. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2020.1755423\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCanfield, C. F., Seery, A., Weisleder, A., Workman, C., Cates, C. B., Roby, E., ... \u0026amp; Mendelsohn, A. (2020). Encouraging parent\u0026ndash;child book sharing: Potential additive benefits of literacy promotion in health care and the community. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Research Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e, 221-229. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.11.002\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eChandio, M. T., Pandhiani, S. M., \u0026amp; Iqbal, R. (2016). Bloom\u0026apos;s Taxonomy: Improving Assessment and Teaching-Learning Process. \u003cem\u003eJournal of education and educational development\u003c/em\u003e, 3(2), 203-221. https://doi.org/10.22555/joeed.v3i2.1034\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eClemens, L. F., \u0026amp; Kegel, C. A. (2021). Unique contribution of shared book reading on adult-child language interaction. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child Language\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e48\u003c/em\u003e(2), 373-386. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000920000331\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eCoghill, D., \u0026amp; Seth, S. (2015). Effective management of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) through structured re-assessment: the Dundee ADHD Clinical Care Pathway. \u003cem\u003eChild and adolescent psychiatry and mental health\u003c/em\u003e, 9, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13034-015-0083-2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDavies, C., McGillion, M., Rowland, C., \u0026amp; Matthews, D. (2020). Can inferencing be trained in preschoolers using shared book-reading? A randomised controlled trial of parents\u0026rsquo; inference-eliciting questions on oral inferencing ability. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Child Language\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e47\u003c/em\u003e(3), 655-679. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0305000919000801\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDenton, C. A., Tamm, L., Schatschneider, C., \u0026amp; Epstein, J. N. (2020). The effects of ADHD treatment and reading intervention on the fluency and comprehension of children with ADHD and word reading difficulties: A randomized clinical trial. \u003cem\u003eScientific Studies of Reading\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e24\u003c/em\u003e(1), 72-89. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888438.2019.1640704\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDeshmukh, R. S., Zucker, T. A., Tambyraja, S. R., Pentimonti, J. M., Bowles, R. P., \u0026amp; Justice, L. M. (2019). Teachers\u0026rsquo; use of questions during shared book reading: Relations to child responses. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Research Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, 49, 59-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2019.05.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDoyle, B. G., \u0026amp; Bramwell, W. (2006). Promoting emergent literacy and social\u0026ndash;emotional learning through dialogic reading. \u003cem\u003eThe Reading Teacher\u003c/em\u003e, 59(6), 554-564. https://doi.org/10.1598/rt.59.6.5\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDowdall, N., Melendez‐Torres, G. J., Murray, L., Gardner, F., Hartford, L., \u0026amp; Cooper, P. J. (2020). Shared picture book reading interventions for child language development: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. \u003cem\u003eChild Development\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e91\u003c/em\u003e(2), e383-e399. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13225\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDuPaul, G. J., Weyandt, L. L., \u0026amp; Janusis, G. M. (2011). ADHD in the classroom: Effective intervention strategies. \u003cem\u003eTheory into practice\u003c/em\u003e, 50(1), 35-42. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405841.2011.534935\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eDykman, R. A., \u0026amp; Ackerman, P. T. (1991). Attention deficit disorder and specific reading disability: Separate but often overlapping disorders. \u003cem\u003eJournal of learning Disabilities\u003c/em\u003e, 24(2), 96-103. https://doi.org/10.1177/002221949102400206\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFielding, L. G., \u0026amp; Pearson, P. D. (1994). Reading Comprehension: What Works. \u003cem\u003eEducational leadership\u003c/em\u003e, 51(5), 62-68. \u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eForehand, M. (2005). Bloom\u0026apos;s taxonomy: Original and revised. \u003cem\u003eEmerging perspectives on learning, teaching, and technology\u003c/em\u003e, 8, 41-44.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eFurman, L. (2005). What is attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD)?. \u003cem\u003eJournal of child neurology\u003c/em\u003e, 20(12), 994-1002.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGroves, N. B., Wells, E. L., Soto, E. F., Marsh, C. L., Jaisle, E. M., Harvey, T. K., \u0026amp; Kofler, M. J. (2022). Executive functioning and emotion regulation in children with and without ADHD. \u003cem\u003eResearch on Child and Adolescent Psychopathology\u003c/em\u003e, 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-021-00883-0.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eGr\u0026oslash;ver, V., Rydland, V., Gustafsson, J. E., \u0026amp; Snow, C. E. (2020). Shared book reading in preschool supports bilingual children\u0026rsquo;s second‐language learning: A cluster‐randomized trial. \u003cem\u003eChild development\u003c/em\u003e, 91(6), 2192-2210. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13348.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHeidlage, J. K., Cunningham, J. E., Kaiser, A. P., Trivette, C. M., Barton, E. E., Frey, J. R., \u0026amp; Roberts, M. Y. (2020). The effects of parent-implemented language interventions on child linguistic outcomes: A meta-analysis. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Research Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e, 6-23. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2018.12.006.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoch, E., Scheiter, K., \u0026amp; Stalbovs, K. (2023). How to support learning with multimedia instruction: Implementation intentions help even when load is high. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e114\u003c/em\u003e(2), 315-334. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjop.12620.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHorst, J. S., Parsons, K. L., \u0026amp; Bryan, N. M. (2011). Get the story straight: Contextual repetition promotes word learning from storybooks. \u003cem\u003eFrontiers in Psychology,\u003c/em\u003e 2, 17. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2011.00017.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHoyne, C., \u0026amp; Egan, S. M. (2019). Shared book reading in early childhood: A review of influential factors and developmental benefits.\u003cem\u003e An Leanbh Og\u003c/em\u003e, 12(1), 77-92.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eHung, C. O. Y., \u0026amp; Loh, E. K. Y. (2021). Examining the contribution of cognitive flexibility to metalinguistic skills and reading comprehension. \u003cem\u003eEducational Psychology, 41\u003c/em\u003e(6), 712-729. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2020.1734187.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eInggriyani, F., \u0026amp; Hamdani, A. R. (2019, April). Self-regulated learning and academic achievement among elementary school students.\u003cem\u003e In 3rd Asian Education Symposium (AES 2018)\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 289-292). Atlantis Press. https://doi.org/10.2991/aes-18.2019.67.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKnauer, H. A., Jakiela, P., Ozier, O., Aboud, F., \u0026amp; Fernald, L. C. (2020). Enhancing young children\u0026rsquo;s language acquisition through parent\u0026ndash;child book-sharing: A randomized trial in rural Kenya. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Research Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e50\u003c/em\u003e, 179-190. https://doi.org/10.1596/33117.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKofler, M. J., Sarver, D. E., Harmon, S. L., Moltisanti, A., Aduen, P. A., Soto, E. F., \u0026amp; Ferretti, N. (2018). Working memory and organizational skills problems in ADHD. \u003cem\u003eJournal of child psychology and psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, 59(1), 57-67. https://doi.org/10.1111/jcpp.12773\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKofler, M. J., Rapport, M. D., Bolden, J., Sarver, D. E., \u0026amp; Raiker, J. S. (2010). ADHD and working memory: the impact of central executive deficits and exceeding storage/rehearsal capacity on observed inattentive behavior.\u003cem\u003e Journal of abnormal child psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 38, 149-161.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eKrathwohl, D. R. (2002). A revision of Bloom\u0026apos;s taxonomy: An overview. \u003cem\u003eTheory into practice\u003c/em\u003e, 41(4), 212-218. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15430421tip4104_2\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLa\u0026ccedil;in, E. (2023). A Teacher‑Implemented Shared‑Reading Intervention to Promote Early Literacy Skills of Preschoolers Children in Turkey. \u003cem\u003eReading Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 44(6), 589-603. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2023.2179142\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLenhart, J., Suggate, S. P., \u0026amp; Lenhard, W. (2022). Shared-reading onset and emergent literacy development. \u003cem\u003eEarly Education and Development\u003c/em\u003e, 33(4), 589-607. https://doi.org/10.1080/10409289.2021.1915651\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eLuman, M., Tripp, G., \u0026amp; Scheres, A. (2010). Identifying the neurobiology of altered reinforcement sensitivity in ADHD: a review and research agenda. \u003cem\u003eNeuroscience \u0026amp; Biobehavioral Reviews\u003c/em\u003e, 34(5), 744-754. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.11.021\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcDougal, E., Gracie, H., Oldridge, J., Stewart, T. M., Booth, J. N., \u0026amp; Rhodes, S. M. (2022). Relationships between cognition and literacy in children with attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A systematic review and meta‐analysis. \u003cem\u003eBritish Journal of Developmental Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e40\u003c/em\u003e(1), 130-150. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjdp.12395\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMcGEE, R. O. B., \u0026amp; Share, D. L. (1988). Attention deficit disorder-hyperactivity and academic failure: Which comes first and what should be treated?. \u003cem\u003eJournal of the American Academy of Child \u0026amp; Adolescent Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, 27(3), 318-325. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-198805000-00009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMiller, A. C., Keenan, J. M., Betjemann, R. S., Willcutt, E. G., Pennington, B. F., \u0026amp; Olson, R. K. (2013). Reading comprehension in children with ADHD: Cognitive underpinnings of the centrality deficit.\u003cem\u003e Journal of abnormal child psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 41, 473-483. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10802-012-9686-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eMills-Smith, L. (2024). Factors Influencing Caregiver Perceptions of Shared Picture Book Reading Enjoyment with their Young Children. \u003cem\u003eReading Psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 45(5), 519-543. https://doi.org/10.1080/02702711.2024.2339810\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eNiu, W., Cheng, L., Xu, W., Zhang, Q., \u0026amp; Zhang, X. (2021). Improving resilience of a child with ADHD: A context specific intervention program through dialogic and guided reading. \u003cem\u003eInternational Journal of Disability, Development and Education\u003c/em\u003e, 68(6), 788-805. https://doi.org/10.1080/1034912x.2021.1929085\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eO\u0026apos;Fallon, M., Von Holzen, K., \u0026amp; Newman, R. S. (2020). Preschoolers\u0026apos; word-learning during storybook reading interactions: Comparing repeated and elaborated input. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Speech, Language, and Hearing Research\u003c/em\u003e, 63(3), 814-826. https://doi.org/10.1044/2019_jslhr-19-00189\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eParks, K. M., Moreau, C. N., Hannah, K. E., Brainin, L., \u0026amp; Joanisse, M. F. (2022). The task matters: A scoping review on reading comprehension abilities in ADHD. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Attention Disorders\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e26\u003c/em\u003e(10), 1304-1324. https://doi.org/10.1177/10870547211068047\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eRyan, R. M., \u0026amp; Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. \u003cem\u003eContemporary educational psychology\u003c/em\u003e, 25(1), 54-67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSeaman, M. (2011). Bloom\u0026rsquo;s Taxonomy: Its evolution, revision, and use in the feld of education. In D. J. Flinders \u0026amp; P. B. Uhrmacher (Eds.), \u003cem\u003eCurriculum \u0026amp; Teaching Dialogue\u003c/em\u003e (pp. 29\u0026ndash;45). Information Age Publishing Inc.\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSemrud-Clikeman, M., Biederman, J., Sprich-Buckminster, S., Lehman, B. K., Faraone, S. V., \u0026amp; Norman, D. (1992). Comorbidity between ADHD and learning disability: A review and report in a clinically referred sample.\u003cem\u003e Journal of the American Academy of Child \u0026amp; Adolescent Psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, 31(3), 439-448. https://doi.org/10.1097/00004583-199205000-00009\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eSj\u0026ouml;wall, D., Bohlin, G., Rydell, A. M., \u0026amp; Thorell, L. B. (2017). Neuropsychological deficits in preschool as predictors of ADHD symptoms and academic achievement in late adolescence. \u003cem\u003eChild Neuropsychology\u003c/em\u003e, 23(1), 111-128. https://doi.org/10.1080/09297049.2015.1063595\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTong, X., Tong, X., \u0026amp; McBride, C. (2017). Unpacking the relation between morphological awareness and Chinese word reading: Levels of morphological awareness and vocabulary. \u003cem\u003eContemporary Educational Psychology, 48\u003c/em\u003e, 167-178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2016.07.003\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eTowson, J. A., Akemoglu, Y., Watkins, L., \u0026amp; Zeng, S. (2021). Shared interactive book reading interventions for young children with disabilities: A systematic review. \u003cem\u003eAmerican Journal of Speech-Language Pathology\u003c/em\u003e, 30(6), 2700-2715. https://doi.org/10.1044/2021_ajslp-20-00401\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003evan der Wilt, F., Bouwer, R., \u0026amp; van der Veen, C. (2022). Dialogic classroom talk in early childhood education: The effect on language skills and social competence. \u003cem\u003eLearning and Instruction,\u003c/em\u003e 77, 101522. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2021.101522\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWeadman, T., Serry, T., \u0026amp; Snow, P. C. (2023). Oral language and emergent literacy strategies used by Australian early childhood teachers during shared book reading. \u003cem\u003eEarly Childhood Education Journal\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e51\u003c/em\u003e(8), 1335-1348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10643-022-01381-8\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWillcutt, E. G., Doyle, A. E., Nigg, J. T., Faraone, S. V., \u0026amp; Pennington, B. F. (2005). Validity of the executive function theory of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: a meta-analytic review. \u003cem\u003eBiological psychiatry\u003c/em\u003e, 57(11), 1336-1346. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.biopsych.2005.02.006\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eWu, S. P., Van Veen, B., \u0026amp; Rau, M. A. (2020). How drawing prompts can increase cognitive engagement in an active learning engineering course. \u003cem\u003eJournal of Engineering Education\u003c/em\u003e, \u003cem\u003e109\u003c/em\u003e(4), 723-742. https://doi.org/10.1002/jee.20354\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eYorke, A. M., Light, J. C., Gosnell Caron, J., McNaughton, D. B., \u0026amp; Drager, K. D. (2018). The effects of explicit instruction in academic vocabulary during shared book reading on the receptive vocabulary of children with complex communication needs.\u003cem\u003e Augmentative and Alternative Communication\u003c/em\u003e, 34(4), 288-300. https://doi.org/10.1080/07434618.2018.1506823\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003cli\u003eZentall, S. S., \u0026amp; Lee, J. (2012). A Reading Motivation Intervention With Differential Outcomes for Students At Risk for Reading Disabilities, ADHD, and Typical Comparisons: \u0026ldquo;Clever Is and Clever Does\u0026rdquo;. \u003cem\u003eLearning Disability Quarterly\u003c/em\u003e, 35(4), 248-259. https://doi.org/10.1177/0731948712438556\u003c/li\u003e\n\u003c/ol\u003e"},{"header":"Tables","content":"\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 1\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eParticipants\u0026rsquo; Demographic Information and Language Performances\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePretest-mean\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePretest-SD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePosttest-mean\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003ePosttest-SD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIQ\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.43\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.99\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.27\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.52\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.41\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.34\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.08\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.83\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e27.14\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.95\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSyntax\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.70\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.74\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.30\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.73\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.22\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.21\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e16.73\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.76\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIQ\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.33\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.28\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.08\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.61\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e40.54\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.88\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.23\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.06\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e32.69\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.67\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSyntax\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.92\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.77\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.56\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.94\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.90\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.97\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e13.69\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.20\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIQ\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.35\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.21\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e33.08\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.53\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e34.49\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.04\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.49\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.84\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e20.00\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.05\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSyntax\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.73\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.73\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.49\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.51\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.27\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.10\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.22\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.16\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eADHD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIQ\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.09\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.57\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.44\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.24\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e37.22\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.50\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.91\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.35\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.44\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.70\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSyntax\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.72\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.63\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.69\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.02\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.13\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.77\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e14.25\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.11\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIQ\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.16\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.57\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.58\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.01\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e36.90\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.09\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.58\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.61\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e22.29\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.15\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSyntax\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.48\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.57\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.29\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.37\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.74\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.81\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.10\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.41\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eIQ\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e11.87\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.34\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e29.98\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.77\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e30.02\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.49\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEV\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e15.39\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.57\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e17.42\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.12\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSyntax\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.58\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.62\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.48\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.51\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRI\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e8.10\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.83\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.13\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.54\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. TD = typically developing; UP = understanding prompts, EP = evaluation prompts, CG = control group; IQ = Raven\u0026rsquo;s nonverbal intelligence test, RV = receptive vocabulary, EV = expressive vocabulary, RI = reading interest.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cstrong\u003eTable 2\u003c/strong\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eGroup Comparisons\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003ctable border=\"1\" cellspacing=\"0\" cellpadding=\"0\"\u003e\n \u003ctbody\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eGroup\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eVariables\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003emean\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eSD\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eF\u003c/em\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePartial \u003cem\u003e\u0026eta;\u003c/em\u003e\u003csup\u003e2\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003ePost-Hoc comparison\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eTD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRV_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.14\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.82\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e44.06\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.445\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUP=EP\u0026gt;CG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEV_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.05\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.90\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e499.32\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.901\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEP\u0026gt;UP\u0026gt; CG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSyntax_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.59\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.85\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e120.00\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.686\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEP\u0026gt;UP\u0026gt; CG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRI_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.51\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.45\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e164.69\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.750\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUP\u0026gt;EP\u0026gt; CG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRV_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.46\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.91\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEV_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e12.46\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.06\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSyntax_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.64\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.22\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRI_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.79\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.54\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRV_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.41\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.57\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEV_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.49\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.30\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSyntax_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.24\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.95\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRI_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.05\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.27\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eADHD\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRV_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.78\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.58\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.72\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.361\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUP=EP\u0026gt;CG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEV_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.53\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.17\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e9.37\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.171\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUP=EP\u0026gt;CG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSyntax_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.97\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.31\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e45.90\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.502\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUP\u0026gt;EP\u0026gt;CG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRI_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.13\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.80\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e25.06\u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.355\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eUP\u0026gt;EP\u0026gt;CG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEP\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRV_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e7.32\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.86\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEV_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e6.71\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.22\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSyntax_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.81\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e1.62\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRI_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e3.35\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.25\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eCG\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRV_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026lt;.001\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e4.99\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eEV_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.03\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e5.04\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eSyntax_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.10\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e.70\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003ctr\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003eRI_change\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e-.97\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e2.59\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003ctd valign=\"top\"\u003e\n \u003cp\u003e\u0026nbsp;\u003c/p\u003e\n \u003c/td\u003e\n \u003c/tr\u003e\n \u003c/tbody\u003e\n\u003c/table\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003cem\u003eNote\u003c/em\u003e. \u003csup\u003e***\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .001, \u003csup\u003e**\u003c/sup\u003e\u003cem\u003ep\u003c/em\u003e \u0026lt; .01; TD = typically developing; UP = understanding prompts, EP = evaluation prompts, CG = control group; IQ = Raven\u0026rsquo;s nonverbal intelligence test, RV = receptive vocabulary, EV = expressive vocabulary, RI = reading interest.\u003c/p\u003e"}],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":true,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":false,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":false,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":false,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"shared book reading, children, prompts, ADHD, language learning","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7332214/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-7332214/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eShared book reading (SBR) is considered an appropriate approach to enhance children\u0026rsquo;s language development. Meanwhile, Bloom\u0026rsquo;s Taxonomy serves as an evaluative tool for assessing cognitive competencies and a scaffold for designing educational activities considered intellectually rigorous. However, the contributions of SBR prompts to children\u0026rsquo;s language abilities and related emotions remain unclear, particularly the impacts of understanding prompts (UPs) and evaluating prompts (EPs) on the development of their language abilities and related emotions. To address this gap, the current study recruited 96 ADHD children and 113 typically developing (TD) children. After 12 weeks of SBR intervention, the results showed that embedding prompts into SBR significantly enhanced children\u0026rsquo;s language development. In particular, amongst the TD children, the UP group performed better than the EP group in terms of reading interest. However, the EP group performed better than the UP group in terms of expressive vocabulary and syntax. Moreover, amongst the ADHD children, the UP group had higher scores in syntax and reading interest than the EP group. This study sheds lights on parental prompt selection to help enhance children\u0026rsquo;s language development during book reading activities.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Contributions of Understanding and Evaluation Prompts to the Development of Children’s Language Skills and Related Emotions During Shared Book Reading","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-08-19 07:03:11","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-7332214/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"88d42fe7-436b-49fb-8724-7f8533b88699","owner":[],"postedDate":"August 19th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-12-03T01:53:28+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-08-19 07:03:11","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-7332214","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-7332214","identity":"rs-7332214","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}