## 3 Results
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline  & **TG Condition** & **RO Condition** & **\(n\) 1** \\  & **Mean (sd)** & **Mean (sd)** & **\(n\) 1** \\ \hline Age in months & 41.66 (3.22) & 35 & 42.34 (2.55) & 35 \\ \hline Age range (months) & 34–46 & 35 & 37–48 & 35 \\ \hline Boys/girls & 26/9 & 35 & 25/10 & 35 \\ \hline Multilingual/monolingual & 9/26 & 35 & 8/27 & 35 \\ \hline Language comprehension 1  & 78.42 (12.23) & 33 & 77.54 (15.79) & 35 \\ \hline Sentence production 2  & 74.67 (7.64) & 30 & 71.50 (7.55) & 35 \\ \hline Word production 3  & 72.88 (16.87) & 33 & 66.59 (14.05) & 35 \\ \hline Receptive vocabulary 4  & 83.13 (15.64) & 31 & 87.79 (13.77) & 35 \\ \hline NV-IQ score 5  & 95.24 (16.0) & 29 & 94.42 (9.77) & 26 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} Note. 1 At baseline, scores were not available from every child for each test. 2 Schlichting Test for Language Comprehension quotient score [28]. 2 Schlichting Test for Sentence Production quotient score [29]. 3 Schlichting Test for Word Production quotient score [29]. 3 Schlichting Test for Word Production quotient score [29]. 4 Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-III-NL quotient score [30]. 5 Non-verbal intelligence measured with either SON-R-2-8 [31] or Bailey-III-NL [32].  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Descriptives of the two participant groups (TG = tablet game) and RO (real objects), with means and standard deviations of age, age range, gender, language background, and scores on Dutch standardized language and non-verbal IQ tests. All standardized tests have a mean score of 100, and standard deviation \(-/+\) 1 is 15 points. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline  & **TG Condition Mean (sd)** & **RO Condition Mean (sd)** \\ \hline Target words (max score 22) & Mean & \\ T0 & 7.63 (2.69) & 8.71 (3.18) \\ T1 & 12.60 (3.75) & 13.37 (3.62) \\ T2 & 13.91 (3.61) & 14.09 (2.78) \\ Control words (max score 22) & & \\ T0 & 8.37 (2.33) & 8.94 (2.82) \\ T1 & 9.80 (2.85) & 10.00 (2.62) \\ T2 & 10.69 (3.09) & 10.29 (3.06) \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 2: Means and standard deviations (sd) of correct target words and control words on the receptive vocabulary picture selection task in TG (tablet game) and RO (real objects) conditions at the three time points. The children's scores were analyzed with two (condition: tablet game vs. real objects) by two (type of words: target vs. control words) by three (time: T1 vs. T2 vs. T3) repeated measures analysis of variance (RM-ANOVA). There was no effect from the condition F(1, 68) = 0.553, \(p\) = 0.460. There was only a significant effect for interaction between the time and type of word (F(2, 136) = 47.399, \(p\) < 0.0005, partial \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.606), meaning that the children learned more target words than control words. Figure 3 illustrates the number of new target and control words learned directly post-intervention and at the retention measurement, with a steeper curve in the target words compared with the control words. Partial \(\eta^{2}\) effect sizes can be interpreted as follows: 0.01 = small effect, 0.06 = medium effect, and 0.14 = large effect. Follow-up repeated measures ANOVA per type of word showed a growth of target words (\(F\)(2, 136) = 123.033, \(p\) < 0.0005, partial \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.644). Post hoc tests showed that differences between T0 and T1 (\(p\) < 0.0005, partial \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.690), T0 and T2 (\(p\) < 0.0005, partial \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.746), and T1 and T2 (\(p\) = 0.032, partial \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.092) were all statistically significant. For the control words, the mean scores also differed significantly over time (\(F\)(2, 136) = 17.382, \(p\) < 0.0005). Post hoc tests yielded a significant difference between T0 and T1 (\(p\) < 0.0005, partial \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.216) and T1 and T3 (\(p\) < 0.0005, partial \(\eta^{2}\) = 0.300) but not between T1 and T2 (\(p\) = 0.221).