The home language environment in rural China: variations across family characteristics

BMC Public Health

Table 2 Language Environment Analysis (LENA) outcome differences between urban and rural households

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

Source: Column 1 (“Rural northwestern China sample”) is from the authors’ survey. Column 2 (“Urban Shanghai sample”) is from Zhang et al. 2015.
Note: This table utilized data from urban Shanghai (Zhang et al., 2015). According to Zhang et al. (2015), volunteer parents of 22 children aged 3 to 23 months were recruited for their Shanghai sample. To recruit the participants, the Shanghai study team used flyers, emails, and word of mouth. A total of 22 participants were selected to record language development based on age group balance. Families provided daylong, in-home audio recordings using LENA. Three LENA recordings were collected over a 2-week period for each family to provide a stable estimate of the home language environment. Audio samples for the validation analyses were randomly drawn from one recording per family. The standard recording period was 16 h but given variability across families with respect to start and end times the Shanghai study restricted the potential sampling range to the 12 h between 9 am to 9 pm.

ISSN: 1471-2458