Book reading styles in dual‐parent and single‐mother families
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Whereas many studies have investigated quantitative aspects of book reading (frequency), few have examined qualitative aspects, especially in very young children and through direct observations of shared reading. AIM: The purpose of this study was to determine possible differences in book-reading styles between mothers and fathers and between mothers from single- and dual-parent families. It also related types of parental verbalizations during book reading to children's reported language measures. SAMPLE: Dual-parent (29) and single-parent (24) families were observed in shared book reading with their toddlers (15-month-olds) or young preschoolers (27-month-olds). METHOD: Parent-child dyads were videotaped while book reading. The initiator of each book-reading episode was coded. Parents' verbalizations were exhaustively coded into 10 categories. Mothers completed the MacArthur Communicative Development Inventory, and the children were given the Bayley scales. RESULTS: All parents differentiated their verbalizations according to the age rather than the gender of the child, but single mothers imitated female children more than males. Few differences in verbalizations were found between mothers and fathers or between mothers from single- and dual-parent families. Fathers allowed younger children to initiate book-reading episodes more than mothers. For both age groups of children, combined across families, verbalizations that related the book to the child's experience were correlated with reported language measures. Questions and imitations were related to language measures for the older age group. CONCLUSIONS: The important types of parental verbalizations during shared book reading for children's language acquisition are relating, questions and imitations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".